Channel Islands: Tax Competition

Lord Waddington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they propose to make the Channel Islands modify or dismantle their tax arrangements to comply with the demands of the European Union's Code of Conduct Group on "unfair tax competition" and, if so, how.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the United Kingdom is committed to encouraging its dependencies to accept the principles of tackling unfair tax competition. The code of conduct is, however, a voluntary, non-legally binding agreement. We expect to start discussions with the Channel Islands on the code group's report. Channel Islands legislation has always taken the form of laws enacted by the islands' legislatures and it would be unprecedented for the United Kingdom to legislate for the islands on tax.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his emollient reply but I suggest that it does not quite fit the facts. Does not the final report of the European Union Code of Conduct Group on business transactions reveal that Ms Primarolo committed the United Kingdom Government to eliminating a whole raft of tax measures in the Channel Islands on which the financial services industries of the islands depend? Is that not quite extraordinary and quite unacceptable when the Channel Islands are not a part of the European Union and the European Union has no right to interfere in the business of the Channel Islands; when the Channel Islands are not even covered by the--

Noble Lords: Question!

Lord Waddington: My Lords, this is a question, and an important one too. As I said, the European Union has no right to interfere in the business of the Channel Islands when the Channel Islands are not even covered by paragraph m of the code, which refers to dependencies of the United Kingdom--which the Channel Islands are not--and when Britain has never exercised jurisdiction in tax matters in the Channel Islands.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course the United Kingdom supports international measures to counteract harmful tax competition. The Government fully support the work of the Code of Conduct Group chaired by Dawn Primarolo. However, the tax code of conduct on business taxation commits member states to promoting its principles in their dependent territories, but only,
	"within the framework of their constitutional arrangements".
	I believe that that explains the relationship perfectly. All we shall seek to do in this instance is to work closely with our colleagues in the Channel Islands and in the Isle of Man to attempt to achieve our objectives through the usual methods of discussion and negotiation.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, is not the most important feature of the report of the Code of Conduct Group that, while it is likely to lead to the elimination of certain forms of harmful practices of tax competition, which can be harmful to this country as much as to other European countries, contrary to the usual prophecies of doom and gloom of Europhobes in the Conservative Party, it has left the UK system of taxation unscathed? There is no criticism of our support for the film industry, enterprise zones or special help for scientific research. Is not the overall effect of the report likely to be extremely helpful to this country?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valuable contribution to the discussion. We have emerged with a clean bill of health. Our financial institutions have a good reputation across the world, which is in the interests of, and benefits, our economy. That ought to be welcomed by all.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, is tax competition in the Government's eyes always harmful? If it is sometimes harmful and sometimes beneficial, when is it harmful and when is it beneficial?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is unfair tax competition that is harmful. It is worth reminding the noble Lord of a communique issued by the G7 countries at the 1996 Lyons summit, which states,
	"Tax schemes aimed at attracting financial and other geographically mobile activities can create harmful tax competition between states carrying risks of distorting trade and investment and could lead to the erosion of national tax bases".
	That statement was signed by the previous Prime Minister, John Major.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I note what my noble friend has said about the code of conduct. Clearly it cannot apply to the Channel Islands given their protocol and given the constitutional arrangements which have always obtained. However, I put the following question to him. What response has the Government received so far to their efforts to encourage the Channel Islands to abandon their present practices? Can I be assured that, having done her best to encourage the Channel Islands, my honourable friend in the other place will not in any way resort to efforts to pressurise the Channel Islands to accept the measure?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I said in my initial response, we expect to start discussions on the code group's report with the Channel Islands in the near future. The success of the constitutional relationship between the UK Government and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man has been such that we have always managed to proceed through discussion and negotiation. I am bound to say that that has been a successful process. The Edwards report, which considered the regulation of financial institutions, proves that point. That is the best way for us to continue to conduct ourselves.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, although the noble Lord said to my noble friend Lord Waddington that it would be "unprecedented" for the United Kingdom to insist on changing tax arrangements in the Channel Islands, will he confirm that the Kilbrandon report of 1973, paragraphs 1533 to 1535, is at least ambiguous on this point? First, will the Minister therefore give a clearer answer to your Lordships' House? Secondly, will he admit that hundreds of billions of pounds come to this country through the Channel Islands and other dependencies, and that to do anything to upset that flow of business would be suicidal, even by the standards of our collaboration with the European Union?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Kilbrandon report of 1973 has served us well for approaching 30 years. From my studying of paragraph 1499, if there is ambiguity in the report, it is extremely helpful ambiguity.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Kilbrandon report left the constitutional relationship between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom extremely unclear, although it does refer back to a charter of 1204 which makes the relationship rather clearer? Is it perhaps time for the Home Office to revisit the question of the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands--and perhaps between the Channel Islands and the EU--since many Bills which come before this House have additional clauses on whether the Channel Islands are opting in or opting out of different parts of EU-related legislation?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I described it as helpful ambiguity; that is perhaps how we should leave it. We have no plans to interfere with the current constitutional arrangements, which, as I have described, have worked very well. The only occasion I can find when the UK government in any way tried to interfere in matters affecting any of the islands was in relation to the Isle of Man under the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967. As I understand it, that Act was designed to deal with Radio Caroline.

Shepherds' Crooks and Walking Sticks

Earl Ferrers: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they will take to safeguard the livelihoods of makers of shepherds' crooks and walking sticks in the light of draft European Union Commission Document XXIV/2905/99 which would designate sheep horns as specified risk material.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that among the many implications which these draft proposals raise for the UK livestock industry the interests of makers of shepherds' crooks and walking sticks have not been overlooked by Her Majesty's Government. If the heads of sheep were to be classified as specified risk material under EU legislation, then an exemption for horns such as currently exists under our national SRM controls would be required. The Government have already raised this point with the European Commission as part of the wider discussions currently taking place.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that encouraging Answer. Is she aware that the Commission document does not say anything about horns not being covered? It states that sheep's heads are designated as specific risk material. Curiously enough, it excludes the tongues but includes the horns. Who has ever eaten a horn, for goodness sake? This is based on the altar of protection against BSE from which sheep do not suffer. Is the noble Baroness further aware that stick dressers boil the horns for four hours before they make them into a shepherd's crook, or whatever it may be, by which time any possible bug must have vaporised?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am delighted to say that I am totally at one with the noble Earl on this issue. Like him, I have never eaten a sheep's horn. Thanks to his Question, I now know more about the practices of border stick dressers than in the past. The point the noble Earl has raised was taken into account when the provisions in regard to the classification of sheep heads as SRM in the United Kingdom were brought in. There have been on-going discussions with the industry about them. We recognised that the initial European proposals did not address this particular problem. As I said, we have raised this specific issue, although the proposals need changing in wider respects than simply this one.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, is not the Minister being rather complacent? This is an unusual building and a number of walking sticks--and possibly shepherds' crooks--are deposited in various parts of it. Given the information they have at their disposal, it is reasonable to ask the Government what guarantees they can give that such items are not a danger to the public. Do Black Rod and his staff receive any assistance or advice on how to cope with them? How does one identify them? Finally, is the Minister sure they are not breeding?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should not wish to give the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, any assurances of which I am not completely certain. Voluminous though my folder is, he has raised issues which are not covered within it. If there are issues upon which Black Rod needs advice, I am sure he will make this clear to the Government. If the noble Lord's question raises issues to which I should respond, I shall do so.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, mindful that it is not unknown for right reverend Prelates in this House to carry around implements of office and mindful that some of those implements of office resemble more closely real shepherds' crooks than the more symbolic kind, would the Minister care to give an undertaking to provide guidance on how such crooks of office may be made in the future?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government's record in terms of protecting the availability of the material necessary has been impeccable so far in terms of national SRM controls. We intend to continue to ensure that such material is available, both for religious purposes--recognising that what we are discussing is not unique to one religion--and for the manufacturers of walking sticks and shepherds' crooks.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that when she was in another place the late Lord Mellish used to keep in the Whips' Office a shepherd's crook with which to correct his flock? I am glad to say that, as a former Whip, I was never forced to ask the Chief Whip to use it on her. On a more serious note, can my noble friend confirm that this matter will be decided by a qualified majority vote? If her colleagues will not go along with that, are we prepared to defy the European Union on this very important matter?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am glad to say that the former Chief Whip in another place never showed me his shepherd's crook. As for the proposals currently before the EU, although there has been a certain amount of levity about them, the matter goes far wider than the issue of horns. The proposals are not satisfactory to industry in this country and at the moment we do not think they are proportionate to the risks. Eventually, this could be decided at the Agriculture Council. We hope that the evidence we have put to the scientific veterinary committee and the scientific steering committee will allow a proportionate approach to be taken and that a sensible solution, providing protection across Europe on the issue of specified risk material, will be able to go forward.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister realise that another threat to the shepherd's crook arises from changes by the Forestry Commission to the woodland grant scheme which mean that small woodland grants may be reduced this year and that deciduous trees, which are those used for crooks and walking sticks, will be fewer in number than conifers?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have not received representations from the manufacturers of walking sticks on that specific aspect. If I do, the Government will certainly look at them with the same care as we have done regarding the availability of sheep horns.

Identity Cards

Baroness Sharples: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider the introduction of a national identity card.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we would consider introducing a national identity card only if we were satisfied that the potential benefits outweighed the drawbacks. Although we are continuing to look at the issues involved, we are not convinced by the arguments in favour of a compulsory national identity card.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I have spoken to the police; they approve in principle of a national identity card. With the rapid advances in technology, why can we not consult our European partners and produce a smartcard, which would prove identity not by a photograph but by a thumb print and would contain a great deal of information, such as the holder's blood group, details regarding organ donation, and so on?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the issue of smartcards was looked at closely in the Modernising Government White Paper and we continue to give careful consideration to it. It may well be that smartcards are the way forward in the future. We are keeping that issue under review and shall consider it further.

Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, why does the Home Office dither so much on this question? Is my noble friend aware that in every national poll that has been taken on this the majority favour an ID card system? The Police Federation favours one. Indeed, the majority of letters that go to the Home Office are also in favour. The Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place has also recommended it. So why does not the Home Office recognise that the majority of the nation are in favour of an ID card system? Would it not help to cut crime? Would it not help to deal with the illegal immigrant problem? Why, therefore, does not the Home Office act?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the question of identity cards has been looked at by both parties in government. Indeed, members of the Opposition will recall that during their time in government they issued a Green Paper on the issue in 1995. They took the view that a voluntary ID card would be preferable and, as I understand it, that was the view of the Home Affairs Select Committee. There are some drawbacks. Civil liberties and the potential costs are very important considerations. I am sure that those issues are very much in your Lordships' minds. My noble friend referred to the police. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers is particularly concerned about national identity cards, first, because the police might end up with part of the responsibility for enforcing their use and, secondly, the association felt that it might well lead to a deterioration or perhaps a breakdown in trust and confidence between the public and the police service.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is issuing photo licences, the DSS is thinking about issuing photo cards and the Passport Office is proposing to issue photo identity cards, is there any chance of the Government being "joined up" in this respect?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a useful contribution--

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord does make a very useful contribution. He always does. I have always enjoyed his contributions. If I may develop the point, "joined up", yes, but there are some practical considerations about which Members of the House may wish to think. If we were to have a passport card which also had on it a driving licence and perhaps details about social security, the card might have to be given out but also withdrawn fairly frequently. What would happen if someone was disqualified from driving but required that same card for passport purposes? Those are technical issues--and difficult ones to resolve. Those are precisely the kinds of issues about which the Government are concerned.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, modern smartcards can contain a tremendous amount of information. The police would find them extremely helpful, provided that they were not made compulsory to the extent that it would be an offence not to carry one. That would be a problem for the police in terms of community relations. However, because of the wealth of information that such a card could carry, would it not also help to identify at least who can play rugby for Wales?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord's final point is the killer one. But, generally, smartcards are to be welcomed. They will begin to develop. As I said earlier, in the 1999 White Paper Modernising Government, we recognised their value, particularly as new technology continues to develop in this field.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the driving licence, which is already a voluntary identity card, in effect, for most Members of the House, has in the corner the flag of the European Union. Can the Minister assure us--or assure certain Members of the House--that this is not an attempt by the Government to smuggle us without knowing it into carrying the identity card of a European superstate?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have no plans in that direction.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister tell me what is the difference between wartime, when we all had identity cards, and now? What are the practical difficulties about which he spoke?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I may not be the brightest historian but I think that we were at war during wartime.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when can we expect to be able to get the voluntary identity card to which the Minister referred?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have to confess that I cannot advise the House of when we might get a voluntary ID card. But it is something we are keeping under review.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, although the Minister is perfectly correct in saying that if one has too many things on a card the card will perpetually be being sent in to be updated for one reason or another, that does not mean to say that an identity card itself is not a valid thing to have. Can the noble Lord say why we should not have identity cards when our identities are already known in so many different ways, as has been explained by other noble Lords?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I did not say that we should not have identity cards. I tried to indicate that the Government, as with the previous government, have a very open mind on the issue. The previous government consulted in 1995. They had not made up their mind by the time they left office. The noble Earl should know that better than most because he was a Minister in that government. We are giving the matter careful consideration. Certainly, a voluntary national identity card may have benefits. We have discussed this afternoon the value of smartcards. I have no doubt that when we finally conclude on this issue we shall, of course, come up with the right answer.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, would it not be useful to tie this in with a digital identity so that people can be identified for transactions on the Internet, where there is growing e-commerce?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is one of the considerations we shall actively pursue.

Kosovo

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to ensure that NATO's plans in Kosovo are neither leaked nor placed on the Internet.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, responsibility within NATO for ensuring that Alliance plans for Kosovo operations are neither leaked nor disseminated inappropriately rests with the NATO Office of Security. That organisation oversees comprehensive security measures at NATO headquarters in Brussels and elsewhere. The text which appeared on the Internet recently was caused by a benign virus; it was not a deliberate leak. The material, which is now unclassified, had already been shared with some other nations, including Russia, as well as civilian personnel in Kosovo.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our bombing plans were leaked to the Serbs, and now we have the leak of a nine-page document on the rules of engagement for land operations--material which I understand was restricted and which the Minister says is now declassified. Does not that give the Government great cause for concern that our soldiers operating in Kosovo are being put in added danger? What action are the Government taking against the NATO Office of Security in regard to this matter?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is important to distinguish between the two sets of incidents to which the noble Earl refers. I hope that I have made it clear to the House that there was no deliberate leak of NATO information. The appearance of the text of the rules of engagement in Kosovo was, as I indicated, the result of a virus. The security classification, which was "NATO/KFOR confidential", appeared at the top of that text as the extract formed part of a larger document, but the creation was a genuine accident. The originator has been identified and appropriate disciplinary action has been taken.
	The noble Earl then asked about other incidents where there have been allegations of spying. It is a matter for NATO; however, a NATO spokesman has indicated that there was no evidence of any leaks. Had there been such deliberate leaking in the way implied by the noble Earl, it is surprising that the Serbs did not make better use of that kind of information. Any compromising of security whatever is a matter of great concern. Where an individual has been identified, even though it was an accident, appropriate action has been taken.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not essential that NATO's plans for such flashpoints as Mitrovica and the frontiers of southern Serbia should be kept absolutely secret? On the other hand, is it not important that NATO's determination to protect democracy and maintain the status quo in Montenegro should be made absolutely clear and public?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course it is enormously important that any NATO plans for the future handling of the situation in Kosovo--which, although immensely improved compared to the situation previously, is very volatile--have proper security, not least because there are many allied troops whose safety would otherwise be compromised. I assure the noble Lord that we are keeping a close eye on the situation in Montenegro. Mr Milosevic should be in no doubt whatever about that. He has caused enough trouble in the region already. We want Montenegro to have the right to choose its relationship with Serbia and we keep in very close touch with President Djukanovic and his government. I hope the noble Lord is reassured. There is enormous vigilance. He is quite right: NATO should remain secure.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that no one in the world has any power to stop the placing of material on the Internet? Does she further agree that when the courts purport to do so, as in the recent case of Demon Internet Limited, the effect is probably that the user takes the custom to foreign service providers?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are of course the issues raised by the noble Lord in relation to the Internet. What matters in the first place is the security of documents at their place of origin. That is why it is important that documents that are kept on computers are kept in such a way as not to compromise their security. In this country, the MoD continually reviews and seeks to improve our procedural and electronic security systems. We make sure that all MoD staff are required to read, agree and comply with the security operating system that is used in this country. In addition, we have laws that protect such information, as do our allies, including the United States, to ensure that this kind of information is not compromised by such things as freedom of information.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, what action are Her Majesty's Government taking to ensure that information which is rightly classified in this country is not freely available on the Internet in the United States due to the iniquitous freedom of information legislation in the US?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I indicated that the United States has clear laws on this matter, as we do. The United States freedom of information Act contains an exemption for information which is,
	"properly classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy".
	I believe that that includes the kind of information with which we are dealing here. It would be an offence in the United States, as it would be here, to compromise the security of that kind of information.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Roadworks

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: rose to call attention to the number of statutory undertakers and others with powers to dig holes in the road; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I begin by expressing a hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate will carefully read, mark and learn the well-informed and extremely well-timed article that appears in today's Evening Standard. I hope also, in view of the excellent advice that I have received from the RAC, that Ministers might lend their ears--that is, if their ears are still working--to the RAC.
	Digging holes in roads may seem a rather odd subject with which to detain your Lordships. I should not dream of doing so were it not for the fact that the frequency of the occurrence and the numbers of people who have now made it their favourite recreation have multiplied--with the result that it has now become and serious and costly nuisance.
	It may be useful to go over a little of the background to this debate. Noble Lords might recall, through the mists of time, July 1998, when the Government introduced what used to be called a White Paper. It is still called a White Paper, but somehow or other it has become rather coloured and elaborate, even though its contents are just as flat and dull as they always used to be. The White Paper to which I refer was honoured with a foreword by no less a person than the Deputy Prime Minister. Although it is not exactly a storehouse of gems, there are some semi-precious stones which deserve to be remembered.
	Astonishingly, the Deputy Prime Minister said,
	"We also want a better deal for the motorist".
	We still do. It has been a long time coming. He went on to say that the Government want better management of the roads network. That, too, is still awaited. Then there was a particular gem. He said:
	"We have devised new and imaginative ways of obtaining money from transport for better transport".
	No one would then have guessed that what the Deputy Prime Minister had in mind was not a new imposition but the familiar and rather old tax on petrol, which has been constantly revisited by the Chancellor ever since.
	Some of us still cherish the hope that the Government will proceed to do something about the nuisance caused by holes which so many are free to dig in our roads. I understand that the writer of the article in the Evening Standard, to which I have already referred, contacted the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (as it is now called) and was told that the Government were still urgently considering the problem. The department went on to say that it would probably be wrong to expect action before Christmas. One is tempted to ask: which Christmas?
	Patience can be overdone. I know of no greater exemplars of patience than the English people. I believe that they would be well advised to remember the old adage that the axle that squeaks the loudest gets the most grease. Perhaps the time has arrived when this very tiresome nuisance is raised, not just in the hope that somehow, at some time, the Government might do something about it, but with insistence and, if necessary, a degree of anger. I should like to give the Government some of my thoughts on what they could, and should, do now as a token of their new enlightenment. (Whenever I can, I try to introduce the word "new" to bring home the point.)
	Perhaps the Government will adopt the suggestion made by my honourable friend Mr Christopher Fraser. In a Bill introduced at the beginning of last year he proposed that the Government should make use of their existing powers to impose fines upon utilities that did not fulfil the details of their plans and, in particular, did not finish on time.
	The Government might also consider with sympathy--that is something which central government rarely do--the plight, tasks and responsibilities of highway authorities. Their task is a formidable one. I am advised that the average highway authority can expect to receive some 20,000 applications a year from people seeking to dig up its roads. If the noble Lord wants to interrupt me to say that I am wrong, I shall be delighted. For a moment, I was concerned that my statement had caused the noble Lord some unease. I am glad that that is not so. Highway authorities are the only bodies in this country that are capable of dealing with the problem, but they have neither the muscle nor the resources to do it. I believe that there should be legislation to give them the authority of law to plan, implement and charge for this work and, if necessary, penalise those who do not meet their obligations under plans to which they have agreed.
	The Government sometimes behave as if they are reluctant to legislate. There has never been such an enthusiastic legislator as this Government. We see appalling messes all over the statute book; some illegible, some meaningless, and all of them requiring a tremendous number of amendments before they even start. The Government should put on the statute book a simple measure to deal with this matter. When the Transport Bill comes before your Lordships' House, it will offer the Government a wonderful opportunity. I am only too anxious to help the Government in that task. That measure should give highway authorities the power that they need. It should provide that those who use the highway for the purposes of their business should pay for the privilege, just as other users of the highway are obliged to pay by means of taxes every day of their lives. I see no reason why those who impose confusion, congestion and delay on others should not be invited to contribute to the roads, along with their victims.
	Others have a role to play. The Highways Agency has attracted my attention. That agency, which is really the alter ego of the DETR, is helpful to Ministers because it provides them with a ready-made alibi. They can wash their hands of something and say that people must complain to the Highways Agency. I am not sure how useful is the Highways Agency at a time when the Government have suspended the road-building programme. Nevertheless, I hope that that agency will play a helpful role. Perhaps it will begin by ensuring that those operations which it still conducts are carried out in a way which has regard to the convenience and interests of the road-using public.
	Having dealt with the need to provide highway authorities with additional powers, I turn briefly to the licensees or utilities--all 138 of them. I almost called them "trespassers". I wonder whether they even begin to be aware of the hostility with which they are increasingly viewed by people who are not interested in the rather shallow defence that this work is absolutely necessary. No one disputes that. What is challenged is the way in which the work is carried out--with lack of consideration and efficiency and no concern whatever for the general convenience and interest of other road users.
	Some of the names are well known: Transco, Thames Water and British Telecom. British Telecom incurred a good deal of dislike for having dug up one street nine times in 12 months. Such conduct is careless, sloppy and, in the view of the public, unpardonable. In that context, I cannot forbear to mention the television cable companies which have now made their appearance. The only name that I can recall at the moment is McNicholas. They put their green pipes all over the place without any explanation of where they have come from--one can make a guess about that--what they are doing or how long they will take, appearing to be utterly careless of the massive inconvenience caused. Those licensees might do well to adopt a more constructive approach. Instead of opposing every move forward, they might seek from the Government some suggestions of how they might help rather than obstruct.
	Finally, I have this suggestion. Those who really want to spend time digging the roads and irritating profoundly the rest of us should be required, as a minimum, to put up notices on the site telling anyone who is interested who they are, what they are doing, why they are doing it and how long it will take. To that notice they might also append the name and address of some responsible representative. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, the whole House will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for introducing this topical subject and for his admirable speech. I obtained my first driving licence in 1965. That was one year after the noble Lord had ceased to be Minister of Transport. However, I am told by those who were around when the noble Lord was Minister of Transport that there was ample parking outside every shop, traffic lights were permanently set to green--and holes in the road were known of only by the stories of whey-faced travellers from countries outside this land. Alas, times have changed for the worst.
	When I worked for the Sunday Times in the 1980s the then editor, Harold Evans, was in the middle of a great campaign against cones. Every week Fleet Street's finest were sent off to scour the land in search of more cones which were holding up traffic and articles appeared in the Sunday Times attacking them. His executives, who felt that readers were becoming bored with cones, implored him to call off the campaign and move on to other issues. Harold Evans, who was a wise and experienced hand, said, "No, we must continue this campaign. It is only when they start to get bored that you're getting anywhere". So he continued to campaign. And who can say that it did not work? Ten years later John Major introduced the cones hotline.
	As a result of his persistence, the campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, deserves to go down in history with the campaign of Harold Evans. We have had representations from the noble Lord when we were unable to reach this House because on 7th February Parliament Square had been dug up; we have had his call for signs by roadworks telling us who perpetrates them; and we have the debate today. So we are deeply indebted to him for raising the problem.
	However, I have some problems with the solutions proposed. I have learned a good deal about your Lordships' House in the short time that I have been attending. But I have not hitherto perceived it as a hotbed of traditional socialism. Yet the remedies put forward nearly all seem to belong in the Soviet Union of the 1930s: let us put names to perpetrators of the holes in the road; let us name and shame them; we shall have better co-ordination of holes in the roads; there will be greater powers for highways authorities to curb holes in the roads. Fairly shortly I expect the proposal that the heads of British Telecom--it is such a dire offender in this regard--and some of the other companies be sent for show trial and then exiled to the Outer Hebrides, there to dig and fill in holes without end for the rest of their days--and that would be no more than justice, I agree!
	However, I do not think that that would resolve the problems of holes in the roads. Over the years, we have found that administrative solutions to such issues do not work. We would know by now if they did because there have been many attempts.
	The noble Lord referred to New Labour. I am New Labour in the sense of believing in the market approach to these questions. I think that the way forward is relatively simple. It is to charge the utilities responsible for digging holes in the road for the value of the time wasted by drivers as a consequence. It is a transport relative of a theory with which we are all familiar and to which we nearly all now adhere: the polluter pays--the blocker pays. It is not a new principle even in transport. When new roads are to be built, they are evaluated by the DETR. A value is put on the time that will be saved by the building of those roads. I checked the figure. It is £3.98 an hour for leisure time, and £16.28 for work time. That may say something about the relative values society gives to work and leisure. The delays caused by building those roads are also costed at exactly the same rates and set in the accounts against the value of the roads. That principle seems applicable in logic to holes in the ground. The delay should be charged to and paid for by the contractor.
	I can think of three possible objections, some of which we have seen reflected in the newspapers. First, it would stop certain kinds of development. We would not have cables put into our factories and so on. But a simple principle of economics is this. If the cost of doing something outweighs the benefit, you do not do it. In most cases I do not think that that would be the result. For instance, the benefits of cabling are enormous to society and would outweigh the cost. But in cases where the costs outweigh the benefits, the work should not take place.
	There is a variant on that argument: that it would put up prices; that if the gas company had to pay to dig holes in the road the price of gas would go up and that would be inflationary. That is a second and equally crass economic fallacy. It is a fallacy mainly because a change in the relative price level cannot in principle affect the absolute price level in society. That is determined by macroeconomic factors. For example, if the money went to the Government, they might choose to reduce the rate of VAT. The price level would be unchanged but it would shift from a general burden on all consumers to one on the consumers of the gas whose production had caused the delays in the first place.
	Finally, that is not what will happen. If one increases the cost of digging the holes, prices will not increase. Companies would start to dig those holes at weekends when there was not much traffic. In the country they would dig them at night when there was no traffic to be delayed. And new techniques would be invented because the old techniques would prove too expensive. Instead of having to dig a hole before companies put in a fibre optic cable, they would soon invent ways of leading fibre optic cables underground which avoided having to pay those charges. That is how the market works. It took a long time for some of us in the Labour Party to understand the magic of the market, but it is rather good at solving this kind of problem.
	The previous government dipped a half toe in the water. Under Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, they can charge for works which continue beyond their allotted time. This Government have gone a little further. Their consultation document in 1999, entitled Reducing disruption for utilities' street works, proposes that there should be a charge not only for those who take too long to dig their holes and fill them in again but also from day one when the work is started. But that is still not a charge related to the degree of disruption caused. It does not matter if it takes a little longer to dig up a minor byway in the country, but it matters tremendously if, as at present, there are dug up in swift order Parliament Square, Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly. Therefore the charges there would be much greater.
	The Government have at last started to consult along the right lines, but they have not yet gone far enough. Not many long-lasting problems--it is a lesson of life--lend themselves to relatively easy solutions. I think that this solution is a rare exception. I commend it to the House and the Government.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may gently remind all noble Lords that the time is extremely tight and that if they overrun they will make a huge hole in the Minister's time to reply to their concerns.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I believe that the previous speaker spoke for less than his allotted time.
	The irritation which the problem has caused has led to Questions being asked in the House, but this is the first time we have had an opportunity to debate the issue at length. We are therefore most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
	The subject appears to be a music hall joke. We do not want that; we want it to become the serious issue that it is. Holes in the road not only cause great anger; they cost us a great deal of money. Anger is also aroused by the lack of government action in respect of the digging of the holes. I hope that the Minister will offer some solutions.
	I want to refer to some of the arguments we constantly hear. Some repairs are undertaken in areas where there are private residences. It is most irritating to discover that no one is working at, say, half past four. I am sure that contractors could be told to work until seven or eight o'clock in the evening and that if that costs more they should have to deal with it. We cannot have holes just left in the middle of the road.
	The frequency of digging up the same stretch of road has been mentioned. The Strand is a great example: it was dug up continuously over a period of two years. There appears to be no contact between the different contractors involved.
	Another frequent complaint relates to announcements that work will be completed by a certain date. What happens if it is not? Can the utility or contractor be fined, or fined enough? Recently, the road between St James's Street and Albemarle Street was dug up and a notice indicated that the work would be finished by a certain date. It went on for at least another week. But there was no notice of explanation, or of an apology, or of a fine. Can the Minister say whether fines can be levied and, if so, whether they are sufficiently high? Contractors do not seem to realise the cost to the country of longer journeys. They should be involved in some of that cost.
	Finally, can the Minister assure the House that the Government are taking the matter seriously and that legislation will soon be brought forward in order to overcome an increasingly irritating problem?

Lord Levene of Portsoken: My Lords, I was pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, had initiated today's debate on an issue with which we are all confronted on an all too regular basis, whether we like it or not.
	Last year, during my term of office as Lord Mayor of the City of London, the topic caused increasing concern and led us to address the issue in the City in a manner which I believe should commend itself to wider usage.
	I was very much aware of the proposed Streetworks Bill, which was under discussion in another place, but recognised the difficulties which such legislation might and did produce. My concern with the Bill was that in so far as it imposed costs on the utilities--that has been further suggested today--I did not believe that that would have any impact on reducing the problem, other than that the costs involved would be passed on to the consumers.
	Furthermore, motorists or other passengers in transit, stuck in inevitable jams caused by such roadworks, would certainly find very little comfort in learning that the contractor was having to pay for the privilege of holding them up. They would far rather not be held up at all, or at least, far less frequently.
	In the City, our intention was to try to address the problem with the co-operation of the various utilities involved, with a view to reducing significantly the incidence of disruption, but on a voluntary basis. I was very interested, but not entirely surprised, to learn last year that the Square Mile represents 20 per cent of the entire UK market for the telecommunications services by value. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the incidence of digging in the streets to lay new cables can, at times, become overwhelming.
	Having done a certain amount of investigation into the subject, it became clear that the vast bulk of the cost relating to streetworks was involved in digging up the road and then filling it in again and resurfacing it, rather than in the cables and pipes in the holes. Many noble Lords will have seen all too often the ludicrous situation of a stretch of road being dug up, subsequently filled in and then dug up again almost immediately by a different utility.
	My aim was, through voluntary consultation, to persuade the utilities to co-operate with each other and with the local authority so that a busy stretch of highway would be dug up only once during a period of, say, a year or two, but that during the time the trench was open all the utilities would use the facility to lay or re-lay their own services. That has the enormous advantage to the utilities that they would save a huge amount of money.
	I wrote to the chairmen of all the utilities which operate in the City of London and held a meeting with them to discuss the matter. It was recognised that emergencies occur which cannot be pre-planned and that some requirements, particularly in telecommunications, are necessary at relatively short notice. None the less, we succeeded in the City of London in a number of areas.
	First, we published a voluntary code of practice for the co-ordination of streetworks in the City of London. All the 20 statutory undertakings which work in the City have agreed to it and adopted it. We have listed the 56 main streets in the City which are included in the voluntary code of practice. In addition, we have given the statutory undertakings our plans up to the year 2020, indicating which works will be undertaken in which streets, on which dates and, in particular, where the local authority--in this case, the City--has to resurface the streets in question. That has an even bigger advantage to the utilities. We dig the hole and provide the trench; they fill it in with pipes; and then we resurface it. They pay nothing and it is work which the City would have to undertake in any event.
	In addition, the utilities have agreed to submit their own proposals to the Corporation for co-ordination and that, following the completion of the works in question, a 12-month moratorium on the particular street being broken up will be firmly enforced.
	The voluntary code of practice has been in operation in the City since the beginning of the year and there is every indication that it is working well. Indeed, I am told that the practice of sharing holes or trenches is a great success in the City.
	The scheme is not perfect--no scheme of this type ever can be--but it has the considerable merit of costing nothing, requiring no legislation, saving costs to the utilities and therefore their customers, and reducing the number and frequency of the holes, which we all loathe.
	I know that neighbouring local authorities in London are considering similar schemes. I would commend to the Government an early consideration of the scheme with a view to expanding its operation much more widely throughout the country.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, what we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Levene, promises the most hopeful solution that I, for one, have heard on this subject for a very long time. I, too, am pleased that my noble friend Lord Peyton has raised the question of people who are authorised to dig holes in the road. As I drive around the Weald of Kent, where I live, it sometimes seems that there is more hole than road. My noble friend Lord Peyton concentrated on the concerns of road users. In a moment or two, I should like to concentrate on the concerns of business people--shopkeepers and the like--whose interests are gravely damaged by the current practice (or malpractice) of digging up the roads.
	There appears to be no concern among those who have the statutory power to authorise a hole to be dug in the road for the effect that it will have on businesses. There appears to be no provision for the service of reasonable and sensible notice on those who will be affected. There appears to be no requirement to give an estimate of the length of time that the road will be dug up and, sometimes, closed. There appears to be no provision for monitoring by, in one instance, the DTI. I have given notice to the Minister of a horror story that I wish to raise in which the DTI was the authorising body. There is no provision for monitoring progress and no provision for a penalty to be imposed in the event of an overrun of the estimate. Finally, there is no provision for compensation. Those are major shortcomings in a field where one, of course, recognises that electronic advance will lead to trenches being dug for cables to be laid for whatever reason.
	I want to regale the House, if I may, with a horror story that arises in the villages of Matfield, Brenchley and Horsmonden near where I live. As I said, I have given the noble Lord an account of what took place there in February and March this year. I am sure that not many noble Lords will be aware of those villages, but a road connects them. On a Saturday afternoon in February a letter arrived at the village shop, kept by Mr Michael Keyhoe, which said that on the following Monday morning the road between Matfield, Brenchley and Horsmonden was to be not only dug up but closed. There were to be no traffic lights; the road was to be closed. Of course, there was no estimate of how long the work was to take. Naturally, there was no compensation of any kind. There was no consultation; nothing. It was simply going to happen. And so it duly did.
	The road was closed for four weeks. Who was responsible? I understand that it was a business called Level 3 acting through sub-contractors called Fujitsu. They did not have the courtesy to explain how long they were going to take. However, apparently they explained that it was necessary to close the road because they were digging a trench to enable a fibre-optic cable to connect the City of London with Frankfurt via Folkestone. Not too many people in Horsmonden wish to make contact with Frankfurt other than by means of the ordinary telephone. At least, they did not when I represented them for 23 years as their Member of Parliament. Therefore, it was an added soreness that this major disruption would bring no benefit whatever to the people who suffered in terms of their business.
	Having regard to his family background, I know that I do not need to instruct the Minister about the harm that is done to a village grocery, for example, or to a village bakery, a butcher's shop, or any other retail shop, when this kind of thing occurs. For four weeks the road was closed. I am not saying that those villages were cut off; of course, they were not. However, it was much more difficult, for example, for someone to reach the village butcher. In consequence, the butcher's trade suffered a considerable falling-off. I believe that that is true of all the four retail businesses located there, not to mention the pub, and the difficulties sustained by the primary school.
	How did this come about in such an unjust way? I believe that it was entirely because those businesses--I refer to Level 3 and Fujitsu--behaved as people always do when they are granted power over other people with no accountability whatever. Considerable damage has been done and, even now, the event is not complete. Although the road is open, the workers will come back and continue with more digging.
	Therefore, if there is no statutory provision for reasonable notice--Saturday afternoon until Monday morning in this instance--I should be most grateful if the Minister could explain why there is no provision for notice, for monitoring, for an estimate for the duration of the works, for a penalty clause, or for compensation? As I understand it, none of those things is provided for; at least none has been accorded to those unfortunate people. Therefore, although I gave the noble Lord only short notice, I hope very much that he can tell me why that was the case in the example I have given. If he cannot tell me today, perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me and publish his letter.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I draw attention to the fact that so far the debate has revolved significantly around road traffic expressed in terms of vehicles. Perhaps I may point out that the greatest danger of inadequate resurfacing of roads--that is, inattention to detail in making sure that the job is done properly--is to two-wheeled traffic. Motor cyclists and cyclists have constant problems with uneven roads. Perhaps I may add that pedestrians also come into the picture. It is certainly the case that the cabling companies disrupted the pavements of almost every town in the country, causing enormous difficulties to people who have to push prams and pushchairs around their districts. Such people have no sanction at all against companies which have an absolute right to dig trenches outside their homes.
	Some people may believe that the worst is behind us because the particular cabling associated with television cable companies is over. However, of course, as has already been hinted at in the debate, a fresh wave is about to descend on the country. It has already been experienced in Kent in terms of the development of the new telecommunications digital frameworks, which also require an enormous number of trenches to be dug across many parts of our country. Therefore, the problem will be significant and lasting. That is why we can understand the great public anxiety about those issues, which is reflected by a number of significant columnists. Simon Jenkins of the Evening Standard, for one, drew attention to the depredations upon landowners. He reflected that, just as the Visigoths attempted to make Rome uninhabitable after their visitation, the same experience is besetting Londoners at present by the extent to which their roads are in havoc.
	I greatly applaud the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, who indicated the way in which the City of London was approaching this issue. However, he will recognise that the City of London carries a particular punch when it comes to bringing together those great utilities which often, of course, want to draw upon the facilities of the City of London in other terms as well.
	There is at least one other authority in Britain which is significantly successful in that way. I received a letter from Councillor Mike Olley of the City of Birmingham in which he says that we operate what we call a "FOG"--"fear of God"--scheme with regard to contractors and the people who commission them. We regularly monitor and follow through the monitoring, and we continually harry those who fail to meet their obligations. However, just as the City of London has particular power in terms of its financial dimension, the City of Birmingham is the second biggest authority in the country. I am not at all amazed that the City of Birmingham is able to wield such clout. However, the position for far too many of our local highways authorities is quite clear: they are denuded of resources and have limited ability to insist upon the consultation that is meant to take place before their roads are dug up. They know that there are more kicks than halfpence in chasing up those institutions. To be involved with the issue brings opprobrium upon the local authorities' heads when they have very little power to do anything about it.
	That is why we should look at the way in which we can increase regulation. I agree entirely with the contribution by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. Action is necessary in this area. Of course, it is possible to make the obstructer pay but that will require regulation and Acts of this Parliament in order to ensure that that is in force. That is what we are asking from the Minister today. From the process of consultation which has been going on and the responses that he has received, does he not have a case for early implementation of legislation which will empower our local authorities to safeguard their environment?
	At present, enormous frustrations build up because of the blockage of roads. Britain's roads are congested to an extraordinary degree under normal circumstances. But this blight of a greatly extended number of roadworks by a whole plethora of authorities and utilities surely means that we must look at the way in which we can insist that those utilities fit into a common scheme of consultation; of payment where their contractors fail to meet their obligations; and perhaps we might even consider the representations which I know that the City of Birmingham has made to Ofwat. It was suggested that as part of the statutory performance indicators that Ofwat imposes on the water companies, there should be a requirement to keep their contractors under some kind of order with regard to that issue.
	I have no doubt at all that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has done a public service in introducing this debate. It greatly concerns the nation at the present time. It behoves the Minister to make a positive and constructive response on the way ahead.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence in this debate since I can claim no great expertise in the matter of digging holes in roads; but perhaps that is not necessary. My viewpoint--the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will be pleased to hear this--is that of the innocent passer-by. I am a pedestrian to my last toe. Therefore, I am well aware of the difficulties experienced in crossing roads; in smelling the fumes caused by the semi-stationary traffic; and, indeed, in my capacity as a local taxpayer, in terms of the cost caused by that seemingly extremely inefficient system.
	I may also be considered to be the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus because I use public transport whenever I cannot walk to my destination. The stress and strain on the drivers of public transport--buses and taxis--is considerable. But I am also a local resident and I have to drive my car from time to time and pay for residents' parking, which also may be disrupted as a result of those works. Therefore, as a pedestrian, public transport user, car driver and local resident and taxpayer, I must say that the current scene in London is just too much.
	It is not so much the principle of the work as the extent of the digging up. Travelling along Piccadilly has become torture. Whitehall and Parliament Square have been a mess for as long as I can remember. That picture is replicated throughout the City and the various boroughs of London.
	I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Levene, said on this matter and I look forward with interest to hearing the results of the application of the voluntary code. But nobody so far has mentioned the reason why, at this time of year, there always seems to be a considerable amount of digging up. That is something to do with the funding of local authorities and the fact that local authorities realise that the year-end is close and they must spend all their money or give it back. It may be also that the elections for the mayor of London are a spur to the boroughs to do things before a new mayor comes in and attempts to do something else.
	So clearly, it seems to me that there is a need for co-ordination or, at all events, more co-ordination among undertakers. That is not just between the public utilities and themselves or between themselves and the local authorities; there is also a need for more co-ordination between neighbouring local authorities and boroughs.
	I know that there has been legislation in the past but the exceptions or exemptions for emergencies which are used as an excuse for avoiding the requirements of legislation do not help at all. I should be interested to know what sort of monitoring is carried out to see to what extent the existing rules and regulations are being observed.
	There is also a clear need for better signs and explanations, times and dates of when work is taking place. My noble friend Lord Peyton said that clearly in his final remarks. But only at lunch time today, I heard a story from somebody who lives in a small village where all the roads were suddenly dug up but because there was a large sign saying that that was all in aid of a better water supply for the village, people relaxed and realised that they would have to put up with it and that it was worth the "aggro".
	There is also the question of cost. I believe that my noble friend Lord Peyton gave an example of one street being dug up nine times in one year. The cost of that would be quite ridiculous. Oceans of money are poured out on painting red lines on roads to make red routes and as soon as that has been done, the roads are dug up. What a waste of time and money.
	There is also the issue of residents' parking to which I referred briefly; and there is the cost in personal terms of stress and strain on bus and taxi drivers and everybody else.
	Last year, my honourable friend Christopher Fraser introduced his Streetworks Bill as a Private Member's Bill in the other place. That was the Bill referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, in his comments. It proposed to place new statutory responsibilities on companies carrying out streetworks. Specifically, they would be required to take measures at their own expense to alleviate obstruction or to improve traffic flow; to put up signs giving information on the name and contact number of the undertaker, and the purpose and date of completion of the work.
	Undertakers who fail to comply with the requirements would be liable for charges payable to the highways authority. The Bill also proposed the introduction, within six months of its enactment, of regulations provided in Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which allows charges to be levied for occupation of the highway when works are unreasonably prolonged.
	The Bill also provided for guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State on the calculation of the charges payable, depending on the length of time involved and the degree of obstruction and inconvenience. The Government blocked the Bill. Why did they do that?
	To sum up, we have had legislation and proposed legislation and it has not worked or it has been blocked. What does the Minister suggest can be done to make effective any future legislation? We clearly need a financial incentive. What form do the Government suggest such an incentive should take, given the variety of proposals which have been aired this afternoon? Furthermore, how would that be monitored? Finally, how can the Minister ensure that there is joined-up thinking and planning in relation to digging holes in the roads?

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I should like to add my support and gratitude to that expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for raising the subject this afternoon and for enabling us to have this debate.
	I was particularly interested in the contribution of my noble friend Lord Levene, who has been in a position where he could do something about the problem and did so effectively. I hope that his example may be repeated and copied elsewhere. I should like to draw attention to two aspects of the nuisance to which these Keynesian holes in the road give rise. First, a case in London recently came to my notice where a hole in the road was made, the work which had to be done appeared to be carried out extremely quickly within the day, but the contractors' impedimenta remained on the pavement for many days thereafter: the barriers which they had put around the hole in the road and the little pile of spoil for which there did not appear to be room in the hole when they had finished. Those impedimenta clogged up the pavement and were a nuisance to those using the pavement for many days. I suggest that if there are to be financial penalties for lack of proper performance, that is one of the aspects which should be considered.
	Secondly, I invite the Minister to comment on the need for some advance notice when there are roadworks caused by statutory undertakers--or indeed, anyone else--on trunk roads where there is only a single carriageway. I have certainly experienced during recent weeks a delay of up to one hour on a track of single carriageway trunk road in Wiltshire where some work was being carried out. It was not clear who was carrying it out as there was no notice, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has suggested there should be. It did not appear to be work on the road itself, but there was a lot of quite heavy machinery which had to be cordoned off. There was single way working. Lines of traffic in both directions were held up for the best part of an hour.
	That situation could have been avoided at least in part if notices had been put up well clear of the actual obstruction before the junctions either side of it so that drivers who wished to do so could take diversionary action and divert down other roads to avoid the obstruction. That would have reduced the amount of traffic held up in the traffic jams, reduced the frustration, reduced the cost of petrol being needlessly burned as engines were kept ticking over and would have enabled people to reach their destinations more quickly. I hope that the Minister will address that matter in his reply.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I too express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil and to the noble Lord, Lord Levene. He made a number of good points on the feasibility of the way in which we must approach the matter. I shall direct my remarks to central London only.
	My noble friend Lord Peyton said that there were some 20,000 applications for roadworks throughout the country at a given time. I submit that all 20,000 are in central London at the moment. My main concern is not that holes are being dug. Let us face it: our roads are old, traffic is increasing and the need to dig up the roads, quite apart from maintenance, is increasing all the time. That is understandable and I have a good deal of sympathy with those involved. But I have no sympathy with the fact that there is no co-ordination whatever about the roadworks in any local authority or any highway authority. We are not talking about little holes; large areas are cordoned off. You come to one and then just around the corner there is another one; and just around that corner there is another, so there is a triple whammy of traffic congestion because obviously no thought of co-ordination has taken place with regard to setting up the roadworks.
	Furthermore, as I am sure that many noble Lords will have observed, there is no one working on a great many of the cordoned-off roadworks. I have passed them several times because of the debate and have taken careful note of areas where for periods of 24 and 36 hours there has been no work whatever. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, that it may be easier to control the City of London because a great deal of work in the City of London could be carried out at night. That is not always practical in the rest of London, but I certainly support the Conservative candidate for mayor of London, Steven Norris, who proposes that, wherever practical, roadworks should take place at night. I fully understand that many considerations and practicalities are involved, but where it is possible and feasible I do not see why that should not happen.
	The other point which one has to consider with such horrifying crisis diversions in London is the amount of environmental damage done by the unnecessary pollution. As has been mentioned previously, the position of pedestrians is also affected. They often have to climb over mounds of earth which have spilled over from the roadworks at pedestrian crossings. They have to make their way around barriers where there is no proper crossing and often where motorists cannot see them.
	We know that the Government hold the motorist in contempt. I believe that we have the most expensive petrol in the world. We certainly pay the highest parking fees in central London. I am not sure about car tax; but it must be high in the world league. We are given no consideration whatever by local authorities, the highways authorities and by everyone who already has it in his power to co-ordinate roadworks. I beg the Minister, when he comes to wind up, to give us at least an indication that the Government take the matter seriously and are determined to take matters in hand to see what can be done for what I describe again as a crisis situation.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for bringing this important debate before us. The quality of the speeches and the concerns expressed clearly demonstrate the seriousness with which the Government need to take the issues that he raised. I thank him also because, as has been indicated, he has given us a rare opportunity in this House. Normally debates in this House are--shall I say?--low-key, a little learned, detailed and reflective. If sonorous, they do not have the knockabout rowdiness of the other place but perhaps a sonority reflecting the worldly-wise experience of noble Lords. There have been few opportunities during the two years that I have been in this House for anyone to have a political rant, but the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has given us the opportunity today.
	Like the previous speaker, I should like as a Londoner to concentrate my remarks on what has been happening in London over the past few years and what is happening today. If any noble Lord is not aware of the problem, I suggest that tomorrow he brings in his car, parks it in the car park outside and begins by attempting to go down Whitehall at any hour of the day. He probably will not be able to go down Whitehall, because he will find it significantly blocked at the Trafalgar Square end and he will probably have to go around Horse Guards. Having made it around Horse Guards and into Trafalgar Square, he will find that he is stuck also in Trafalgar Square because it is being dug up. If he negotiates that and then moves along Pall Mall, he will then find an enormous tailback of traffic coming from the blockage at the top of St James's Street in Piccadilly outside the Ritz hotel. Indeed, one might say that the blockage outside the Ritz hotel gives a new meaning to the expression, "The Ritz is open to everyone". One might think that there would be some respite, but I am told that the blockage at the top of Piccadilly will not be cleared until November this year, so we shall have intolerable delay in that area until then.
	If tomorrow noble Lords try to drive past Victoria Station, they will find that that route is no better because Buckingham Palace Road is being dug up and that road will not be free of roadworks until early in 2001. I believe that Westminster Cable Television Company is responsible for that digging.
	I agree with the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. One solution to the problem could be for the work to be carried out after five o'clock. In the course of the normal working day, one can often see holes where no one is working at all. I believe that a prize should be given to any noble Lord who catches someone working in the holes, certainly around Trafalgar Square, which I travel past three or four times a day.
	Several years ago the question used to be, why is the Embankment being dug up at the same time as the Strand? In order for there to be an escape route, why is not the Strand finished before the Embankment is dug up and vice versa? That question is now irrelevant. The whole of London is being dug up simultaneously.
	How has that happened? Many people believe that the fault originated with privatisation. Under the privatisation Acts and regulations, British Telecom, Thames Water and the cable companies have the right to dig up any road after merely informing the relevant local authority. Leaving aside the matter of the gas and electricity companies, I understand that currently 86 telecommunications companies have the right to dig up roads without permission.
	London poses a particular problem because after 1991 those with the power to dig up roads without permission had no obligation to inform the local council. Since 1991 the obligation has been to inform central government because there was a suggestion that between the privatisation measures being enacted and 1991, local councils were delaying, attempting to co-ordinate and slowing up the process. Central government now controls by fax. I believe that all noble Lords would agree that if there is co-ordination we cannot see it, and if it being done by fax, the fax machine was long ago taken off the hook.
	No government, whether Tory or Labour, have anything to be proud of in this regard. Of course, the Tories introduced the privatisation legislation that set in train those matters. John Gummer, when Minister for London, once boasted that there was no need for accountable separate government in London because he knew what was best. After three years, are the present Government any better? With bated breath we waited for the recommendations and the new policy that John Prescott was to unveil. A month or so ago he came up with a marvellous solution: contractors may no longer fax their intention to dig up London, but they must do so by e-mail.
	As Simon Jenkins said a month ago in an article in the Evening Standard,
	"Thus do fools fiddle while London burns".
	For many years London has had an inferiority complex. We recognise that although Londoners account for 20 per cent of the population, they take a disproportionate amount of the country's resources. We recognise that we have a London-centric press that bores the rest of the country with stories emanating from London only. On that basis we have accepted hospitals bursting at the seams and even tube stations closing daily.
	As regards holes in the roads, I believe that the people of London have now had enough. Can the Minister, who is not from the DETR--I am not sure why he is being used as the fall guy in this debate--tell us, to use a phrase of Simon Jenkins, when the scorched earth policy of the DETR on London will stop? If the Government are not prepared to do anything about it, will they give the relevant powers to the new mayor of London? I doubt it. There is an old saying, "When you are in a hole, stop digging". Now is the time for the Minister to stop digging and tell us what he proposes to do about the problem.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. It is a timely debate as anybody who steps outside this House will see within a few yards of the door.
	I come to this debate with a longstanding interest in these matters. I was the Minister of State in the Department of Transport who introduced the New Roads and Street Works Bill in this House in 1990. That became the 1991 Act which reformed the law on utilities' streetworks. It implemented the recommendations of the Horne report on the review of the wholly unsatisfactory system put in place by the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. In doing so, the Act replaced an exceptionally out-of-date statute with a flexible, modern one.
	To the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I say that the old gas companies, the old water boards and the old Post Office were allowed to dig up the roads long before privatisation. Privatisation has made no difference to that whatever.
	The Act introduced new standards for the reinstatement of the road surface, with utility companies being fully responsible for reinstatement following their streetworks. That ended the previously confused divisions of responsibility between authorities and utilities. I believe that that part of the Act has been at least a moderate success. The Act also provided better control over the timing and co-ordination of streetworks.
	Most importantly to this debate, Section 74 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring an undertaker who executes works to pay a charge to the highway authority if the work is not completed within a reasonable period of time, and it is that part, to which other noble Lords have referred, that has never been brought into force.
	The problems caused by utility companies digging holes in the roads are a longstanding annoyance to road users, especially in London. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained to this House last month, there are now many companies that are entitled to dig holes in the roads in London alone. That explains the difficulties incurred around Piccadilly, to which many noble Lords have referred. Recently, the Evening Standard reported three major sets of roadworks managing to,
	"effectively cut off one side of the capital from the other".
	However, those difficulties are all too familiar. Cabling work has disrupted the roads around Parliament Square for some time.
	I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is present during this debate. On this side of the House we regard this as a transport matter rather than one relating to the DTI.
	The Government have stated that it is,
	"certainly the case that pressure has increased both from numbers of street works and from levels of traffic. And there is continuing concern among road users and others affected by these works".
	I certainly endorse those words.
	It is the case that the sheer quantity of companies who need to dig holes in the road has led to a proliferation of the problem. Gas, electric, water and telecommunications companies all need, at some stage, to lay new pipes and repair old or damaged ones. That means that they all need to dig holes in the road. In addition, the onset of cable television has created a new need for companies to dig holes.
	Although the Conservative Party welcomes the new innovations in all these technologies and the competition that they bring, it believes that disruption should be kept to a minimum and that roads should be left in a good state of repair. To those ends, the local authorities should use more foresight at the onset of major roadworks, in regard to both the works of utilities and their own works. I agree with my noble friend Lady Hooper that some of these problems are not caused by the utilities, but by local authorities.
	Simple procedures, such as banning right turns when a carriageway is reduced to one lane, and slight adjustments to the timing of signals, can make a great difference to the length of delays. I came across an example only two or three days ago. The inside lane of a busy two-lane road crossing the South Circular road was blocked with roadworks. Consequently, all the traffic was in the outside lane and one car wanting to turn right could bring all the traffic to a complete halt. The resolution should have been simple. Right-hand turns should have been banned while those roadworks were in place. But, of course, nothing was done. Little adjustments of that kind can make an immense difference and resolve some of these problems.
	The Government conducted a consultation exercise on this issue, which ended in January. In the course of that they cited Section 74 of the 1991 Act as a power that is already available. The consultation paper stated that,
	"the Government believes that such a scheme could make a difference".
	A second option put forward for discussion was the charging of rent for the stretch of road being dug up. Among other things, this could include a daily rate from the first day on site, with possibly higher charges imposed for London and traffic-sensitive streets. The introduction by the previous government of lane rental on motorways and trunk roads, where the contractor is effectively fined if he takes too long and rewarded if he completes the work early, has, I believe, been a major success story. Measures of that kind could be tried in this area as well. Other measures that could be considered include compulsory night-time or even 24-hour working in non-residential areas; and longer hours of work elsewhere. Even in residential areas, we should insist on a minimum of 12-hour working.
	Above all, I put to the House a point that has not been mentioned so far in the debate but which was mentioned on several occasions by my late noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford when we were dealing with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. I refer to the use of trenchless technology. Can the Minister say what progress has been made in this area? For those who are unaware of the technology, it requires the use of mechanical moles.
	Press speculation has suggested that the Government are planning to take action to introduce a daily charge on utility companies for digging holes in the street and to impose heavy fines if they delay the completion of roadworks beyond the stated deadline. To those ends, the 1991 Act is vital.
	The Government announcement, if it is to be believed--although I see no reason not to believe it because we find out about so many policies through the media these days-- strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. That is because a little over a year ago the Government blocked a sensible Private Member's Bill introduced by my honourable friend Mr Christopher Fraser in another place. A number of noble Lords have already referred to that measure. The Bill proposed to allow charges to be levied on undertakers of roadworks. If such roadworks were unreasonably prolonged, it suggested the enactment of Section 74 of the 1991 Act.
	The Bill also proposed to place new statutory responsibilities on companies carrying out streetworks. Specifically, it required them to take measures to alleviate obstruction or to improve traffic flow at their own expense and to put up signs giving information about the name and contact number of the undertaker, as well as the purpose and completion date of the works. Undertakers who failed to comply with the requirements would be liable for charges payable to the highway authority. Indeed, some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, could have been discussed if the Government had allowed the Bill to have a Committee stage rather than blocking it at Second Reading.
	At the time, the British Road Federation described the Bill as a,
	"major boost to reducing congestion".
	Furthermore, the Evening Standard encouraged constituents,
	"to write to their London MPs to ensure that each and every one of them backs Mr Fraser's Bill".
	However, I have good news because I hope that my noble friend Lord Geddes--who, sadly, is not able to attend the debate today--will shortly introduce such a Bill into this House.
	It is not only the road user who is affected by such works. Pedestrians also face a hazardous journey to and from work or leisure in the capital and elsewhere. Pavements are dug up, then patched haphazardly, providing dangerously uneven walking conditions. Cycle paths that get in the way of the utilities are also left damaged by the patchwork of repair. I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, referred to the problems facing both pedestrians and cyclists.
	If the Government are to be believed when they state that they want to reduce the number of people who travel by car, pavements and cycle paths must be improved and the onus to clear them up must be put on the utility companies which create the problems.
	In the July 1999 policy document, A Fair Deal for the Motorist, the Conservative Party made three pledges to improve the state of our roads and to reduce the impact of roadworks on Britain's motorists. First, we said that we shall improve road maintenance, and the visual and noise impact of roads on the environment. Secondly, we shall publish league tables of local authority performance on road maintenance so that councils which neglect roads are exposed. Thirdly, we shall penalise water, electricity, gas and telephone companies for excessive delays caused by their roadworks and use the money for local authority road maintenance. We shall place new statutory responsibilities on companies carrying out streetworks so that, at their own expense, they take measures to alleviate obstruction or improve traffic flow. Undertakers which fail to comply with their responsibilities will be liable for charges payable to the highway authority.
	Finally, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. Is the speculation in the press correct; namely, that the Government are going to act on this matter? If so, can the Minister be more specific as regards the arrangements for charging rent and charging for work that runs over a specified programme? What was the reasoning behind blocking the proposed Bill in the other place last year? Will the Government now support such a Bill if it is introduced in this House, or would they support, for example, measures introduced into the Transport Bill when that comes before this House?
	In conclusion, I should like once again to thank my noble friend Lord Peyton for introducing the debate. I hope that the Government have listened to some of the useful and practical points that have been made by other noble Lords this afternoon.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the DTI, the government department responsible for granting statutory powers to dig in the public highway to the electricity, gas and telecommunications utilities. Perhaps I may say at the start of my remarks that we accept that this is an extremely serious situation. Furthermore, in answer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, our ears are open and we are concerned about the issue.
	In my response to the debate, I should like to focus mainly on the activities of the telecommunications operators. In recent years it has been the increase in their activities that has, indeed, changed the situation. The volume of construction activity by these companies has generated a high proportion of the recent comments and publicity about streetworks. New competition in gas and electricity markets does not generate the same level of streetwork activity since the vast bulk of new competition has been provided through supply companies using the existing Transco and regional electricity companies' networks.
	In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, local authorities do now receive three-year funding so that there is no need to rush through expenditure in March--or at least, only once in every three years. There has been considerable improvement in that respect.
	Repeated and prolonged streetworks by telecoms operators have, I know, caused extensive disruption in certain parts of the country. In London, the disruption has been particularly severe as a number of operators install fibre optic networks to meet the growing demand from business for high-speed, broadband communication services. The south-west and Kent have also faced their share of problems from the construction of communications links up to London from cable landing sites on the Cornish and Kent coasts.
	The Government are conscious of the disruption that the installation of telecoms cabling can cause and want to ensure that it is kept to a minimum. Before addressing what is being done to achieve this, it may be helpful if I explain what has led to the increase in the number of telecommunications operators and why they have been granted special rights as statutory undertakers.
	The previous government set in train the process of introducing competition in the telecommunications market, in infrastructure as well as in services. This Government are strengthening and extending that competition. The results have been remarkable. The liberalisation has stimulated investment in a world-class communications infrastructure, to the benefit of business and residential consumers alike. Prices have fallen as services have been both improved and widened. The cable TV industry alone has invested some £12 billion in constructing new networks over the past decade. We have seen ever-increasing numbers of new companies entering the UK market. Levels of competition in the UK are as great as anywhere in the world with around 400 licences having been granted to a wide range of telecommunications operators.
	Prices for international calls have fallen by 50 per cent in the past five years and we can now call the US for as little as 3p a minute. Competition is bringing UK Internet access prices down. UK Internet users have a wide choice of providers and an increasing choice of pricing packages. The UK was the first market to see subscription-free services develop and take off; and now we are the first in Europe to see services which eliminate call charges too.
	The Government welcome continued investment in the UK's telecommunications infrastructure. The modern broadband networks now under construction are vital to meeting the Government's target of making the UK the best place in the world to do business electronically by 2002 and to ensuring the competitiveness of the economy as a whole. For the interactive multimedia service of the future, a modern broadband infrastructure is vital. Services like fast, always-on Internet access and video-on-demand require high bandwidth links. A competition-based approach is the right way to deliver this.
	Some of the new entrants in the UK telecoms market are granted special powers to assist in the installation of their systems. Those powers, known as Code powers, enable companies to lay cable in public streets without the need for separate licences from local highway authorities and give them access to accelerated planning procedures. With those rights come obligations. Telecoms operators, in common with all utilities, are subject to the New Roads and Street Works Act and its associated regulations. Operators' licences also contain a number of conditions designed to reduce the disruption resulting from streetworks activity. Those conditions are intended to reconcile concerns about protection of the environment with the overall benefit to consumers from increased competition and choice in telecommunications services. For example, their licence requires them to explore duct-sharing in order to reduce unnecessary digging; to install sufficient ducting for future growth in demand and so reduce the need for further streetworks; and to install ducting in footpaths rather than the road to minimise traffic disruption unless directed to do otherwise by highways authorities.
	Many operators also pursue trench-sharing arrangements as a matter of course. It is in their interest to do so, not only to reduce the local impact of new construction, but also because of the cost benefits that duct trench-sharing affords. In Kent, for example, we understand that Level 3 Communications is sharing trench with at least one other operator on approximately 295 out of the 340 kilometres of duct being laid. In Parliament Square, as many noble Lords will testify, a number of operators have shared trenching.
	Clearly, not all licensees can dig up the public highway. Code powers are granted to those installing extensive infrastructure, in recognition of the importance of the services their networks can deliver. More than 80 telecoms operators have been granted those rights and use their powers differently depending upon the markets they serve. The principal categories of operator are mobile and radio fixed-access operators; cable companies; other fixed network operators; and international facilities operators. Mobile operators and radio fixed-access operators use their Code powers primarily to install masts.
	The cable companies' Code powers are used to meet obligations to install local access networks to television and telephony. Their networks now pass 12.3 million homes, or 51 per cent of the population. It is estimated that total franchise coverage will be in the region of 70 per cent of total homes.
	It is the last two categories--fixed network services for business and international communications--where we have seen the biggest rise in demand and increase in the number of operators. In fixed network services, at least half a dozen companies have built modern, national digital networks capable of carrying vast amounts of traffic. Several have built, are building, or are planning urban networks in London and other major cities. That has resulted in an intensely competitive market for transporting large volumes of traffic.
	The volume of telecoms activity tends to be greatest where demand for high-speed, broadband service is highest. At the moment London is out in front in the use of digital technologies--65 per cent of business have dedicated websites and 83 per cent use external e-mail. As demand for digital technologies increases throughout the country, so too will the need for new networks to meet that demand. This will not necessarily mean additional cabling activity; there will be the option in future for services to be delivered by radio. The Government intend to make available licences for radio spectrum later this year to provide broadband services.
	In international communications traffic, the volume of streetworks is again a reflection of the UK's success. We were one of the first countries in the world to promote competition in telecoms infrastructure and we are the leading country in Europe in terms of ICT ownership and Internet use. The size of our telecoms market, and the telecoms expertise that is available here, has led many operators to choose London as the hub for their pan-European networks.
	In a competitive world, pressures for more construction are inevitable. But the Government believe that we must take all the action we can to reduce the impact on people using our highways. The key to avoiding or minimising disruption from streetworks lies in a combination of measures, improving the existing controls and introducing new ones if there is a reasonable prospect of their being effective.
	In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, in most cases undertakers must notify street authorities of proposed works. It is not correct to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, that there is no requirement to notify local authorities about streetworks post-1991. That is not accurate. The statutory undertakers have to notify highways authorities about impending works. The notice period varies according to the works and is longer when streets are traffic-sensitive. Authorities must keep a register of their own and the undertaker's works. This records notices, completed reinstatements and certain other information, and is increasingly reliant on electronic transmission via an Internet-based protocol.
	Undertakers must reinstate the road to prescribed standards. Additionally, the authority carries out inspections of works, a proportion of them at the undertaker's expense. Where defects are found, further so-called "defect inspections" take place and are charged to the undertaker.
	Undertakers must sign, guard and light their works in accordance with a statutory code of practice--the "safety code". In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, it is already a requirement on statutory undertakers to say who they are and to give a telephone number. We are consulting on what further information should be given. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, statutory undertakers are required to remove signing, guarding and lighting equipment no longer in use. If it is still there after the work is completed, it can be regarded as an obstruction of the highway and proceedings taken against the operator by the local authority.
	Street authorities must co-ordinate works in their streets--their own, as well as those of the undertakers. Undertakers must co-operate with the authorities and with each other. Co-ordination and co-operation are general sorts of duty, but they are a starting point. They were an innovation of the 1991 Act and put on a statutory basis the principle of both sides getting together at a minimum of quarterly intervals to discuss planned works, bringing in other interested parties, including other utilities, the police and local businesses and residents, as necessary.
	There are already specific constraints on traffic disruption available in the Act. Street authorities may lay down the timing of particular streetworks and they can intervene to restrain an undertaker from overstaying in the road.
	The detailed requirements are in some cases undergoing revision in the light of experience and consultation. DETR colleagues are finalising a new edition of the safety code; consulting on a revised inspection scheme; and considering consultation responses on proposals for a new edition of the reinstatement specification.
	The 1998 Transport White Paper, A New Deal for Transport--Better for Everyone, committed the Government to
	"consult on options for an incentive system, with penalties, to minimise disruption to all road users, and to encourage improved co-ordination of streetworks".
	The consultation of October 1999 covered England only. In Scotland and Wales decisions about whether to consult on the introduction of parallel measures would be for the devolved administrations and, in Northern Ireland, for the Department for Regional Development.
	The reason the Bill was blocked in the other place was that it occurred at the time of the consultation. As Government, we believe that if we are consulting people then we owe it to them to listen to their views before taking action.
	The consultation document outlined two options which involve an element of charging as an incentive to efficient working, while not excluding other possibilities. These are, first, to activate unused powers in Section 74 of the 1991 Act to charge utilities for occupying the road for longer than an agreed period, and, secondly, to charge from the start of works. New legislation would be required to implement the latter option. It is proposed that highway authorities would be able to offset the costs of operating a system against the monies raised from levying these charges.
	Analysis of the responses to the consultation has shown support for the Section 74 option to charge utilities for overstaying. The Government now intend to implement Section 74 and will work with the highway authorities and utilities to develop such a scheme.
	I believe that this deals with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg. It is important to remember that the highway authorities have powers to direct companies as to their hours of work. It should be said, however, that there are often environmental and safety reasons--for example, reducing noise in residential areas--why local authorities do not want the work to continue in the evening.
	The responses to the consultation also showed a widespread recognition that highway authorities' own works were part of the wider problem of disruption to traffic. We want to ensure that they operate to the same high standards that we expect of utilities and we will be working with them to achieve that.
	There was also a widespread feeling that existing arrangements under the New Roads and Street Works Act could and should be made to work better. We know that there are initiatives in train to that end. The City of London code of practice, which my noble friend, Lord Levene, mentioned, and the Central London Partnership's proposals are examples of this. The aim of the Central London Partnership is to ensure that in central London, where principal routes are the subject of major roadworks, alternative routes will be kept clear of such works. This will require a considerable degree of co-ordination between London boroughs and between highway authorities and utilities. The schemes will begin in May, with the participation of a number of London boroughs. If these schemes are successful, the Government would very much like to see them extended.
	We want to build on ideas like that and the Government intend to work with utilities and authorities to develop best practice in the co-ordination of streetworks activity and in the quality of work--making sure that it is done efficiently and properly first time--so that the standards of all are raised to those of the best.
	Taken together, these initiatives should allow us to make real progress in reducing the disruption that streetworks cause, also seeking to reduce accidents--the very important point raised by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham--

Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I have been listening very carefully to what the noble Lord has said. In the last six months in Westminster alone, once just outside Smith Square, Lloyds Bank dug a hole in the pavement which was there for a month; on another occasion, on the corner of Horseferry Road and Marsham Street, outside the new Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions building, there was a hole for three weeks.
	I telephoned Westminster council on each occasion. On each occasion it said that it found it very difficult to get contractors to come back to rectify the work that they had left.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I appreciate that there are always incidents and cases to which one can point. In those cases it is for the local authority to take the appropriate action, and they do have the powers to do so.
	The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and my noble friend Lord Lipsey raised the question of a lane rental system. The consultation carried out by DETR included an option for lane rental. There was some support for this but not as much as for the Section 74 options that we are now intending to pursue. For the present we intend to concentrate on using the existing powers in Section 74, as well as working with utilities and highway authorities to develop best practice in streetwork operations.
	Telecoms operators do already pay business rates on the infrastructure they install. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, raised the question of trenchless technology. There are research projects in this area, but these need further development before they can be widely used.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, gave me notice of the point he raised about the road between Matfield and Horsmonden in the Weald of Kent which was closed for four weeks. There are a number of quite special features about this particular situation. Level 3, the company involved, applied for a road closure as this would allow the company to complete the work within a shorter space of time than would otherwise have been the case. In the case of Horsmonden there is 900 metres of road, work on which will take a month--partly because there is a by-law which says that, for safety reasons, two gangs cannot work within two kilometres of each other; otherwise the time taken would be less.
	There is a requirement under the notification procedures to discuss with the local authority and other interested parties, for example, people who have fronts on the road. They must also give notice of the expected duration of works to local authorities. Information must be placed on the register of streetworks, which is available for public inspection.
	The point about the penalty for over-running will be dealt with by the application of Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act.
	Turning to the question of loss of trade during streetworks, which the noble Lord rightly pointed out is, from experience, a subject dear to my heart, there is no right in law to a given level of passing trade and no general liability to compensate for loss of trade resulting from fewer passers-by, except when something is done improperly. Sometimes businesses suffer temporary loss of trade owing to traffic flow disruption, along with other commercial uncertainties. The assessment is always difficult. What is a loss to one company is often of benefit to the other. The main difficulty in those circumstances, however, is to assess exactly what is the level of loss of trade which results from these works.
	The Government are committed to ensuring the widespread availability of speedy access infrastructure at an affordable price. It is vital to the growth of e-commerce and the success of the British economy over the coming decade. This infrastructure inevitably involves new construction.
	Real consumer benefits are accruing now and will continue long into the future, but the Government fully acknowledge the real concerns raised in this House today and more widely about the localised but often significant disruption that this construction can cause. The Government are committed to minimising this disruption by improving co-ordination of streetworks; by strengthening reinstatement requirements; by improving existing controls; and by looking at how the penalties can be imposed where the work takes longer than expected.
	As I have made clear, we are very willing to consider new ideas about what more might be done, both in the context of the consultation by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the New Roads and Street Works Act, and in the context of the future reform of communication legislation, on which the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are now starting work.
	This is an important subject. As I hope my remarks have made clear, the Government are seeking to reduce disruptions while not delaying the immense benefits that will come from the widespread deployment of new communications technology.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I have a question to ask. The noble Lord kindly referred to the case about which I gave him notice, but he did not say whether he is content with the present situation; namely, that a business is apparently entitled to no notice whatever from the contractor--the "authorised contractor", under the legislation of the noble Lord's department--as to when the works will take place or how long they will take. Indeed, there is no estimate whatever. Is the Minister content that that situation should continue?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear that contractors are required to give notification and that they must notify the local authority as to the expected duration of the works. In this case, I believe that Level 3 Communications followed the procedure of handing out leaflets to residents. However, I have only just received this information. I shall look into the matter in more detail and if there are any further points that require action I shall most certainly write to the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, in an earlier intervention by the noble Baroness who I believe is one of the Government Whips it was suggested that someone was overspending his time in the debate. But the speaker was not doing so at all; indeed, I have been wondering why the situation has not been explained since then. However, be that as it may, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words.
	We regarded this debate--at least I did--as a transport debate. However, although we acknowledge his ability, his eloquence and his mastery of his subject, the Minister replied in a way that did not cover the subject about which we were talking. I happily acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the Minister with responsibility for transport. It is awfully tiresome for a busy Minister who has no role to play in the debate to come here to listen to the debate. Therefore, I should like to salute and thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his courtesy in being here and listening to what was said. Perhaps I may rub that point in a little by saying that I hope he will really reflect upon our debate from a transport point of view and that he will in due course take an opportunity to give us his views on the points raised today.
	In the legislative cascade from which we suffer at present, I believe that we will be faced with a transport Bill before very long. I hope that the Government will be sufficiently in possession of their senses at that time to ensure that a transport Minister handles the Bill. I can promise the noble Lord that I shall be only too willing to help with all kinds of suggestions by way of amendments to the Bill which will give some effect to the points that we have raised today.
	The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, replied to the debate with the utmost courtesy. The first half of his speech was quite clearly written well before the debate. That part of the speech expressed the reasonable point of view held by those who work in and advise the DTI; but that was not what we were discussing. The noble Lord came round in the end to touching on the main debate. In so far as he did so, his reply, as I understood it, was to say that he was content with the present situation; that Section 74 was all right; and that the additional powers suggested by my honourable friend at the beginning of 1999--that is, powers to fine those who default on time--were not needed. I believe that the latter was an extremely reasonable suggestion. But, with respect, the reply that we have received from the Minister did not address the question as to why the Bill was blocked. We have not received a clear answer to that question. That legislation would have given the Government the possibility of taking useful action.
	Had the problem been eased since my honourable friend made that gallant attempt, there would have been no serious grounds for complaint today. However, the problem has not eased; indeed, it has multiplied and become much worse and much more acute. The Minister then went on to say something that astonished me. I believe that I am the only other speaker in the debate to mention the White Paper. I was astonished to hear a government spokesman refer to it as though it contained even a shred of an argument to back his inaction--

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps I may make it clear that I made a significant point with regard to the blocking of that Bill; namely, that it took place during the consultation process on the question of Section 74, which deals with the option to charge utilities. If I did not make myself clear, perhaps I may repeat what I said. The Government now intend to implement Section 74 and will work with highway authorities and utilities to develop a scheme that will charge for overstaying. I thought that I had made that clear. It seems to me that that is a significant response to the debate.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, to be fair, I did understand what the noble Lord said about the current consultation being the reason for blocking my honourable friend's Bill. However, I am afraid that I did not quite understand--though I do now--what followed. I understand the Minister to be saying that now the consultation is over the powers under Section 74 of the 1991 Act will be exercised--

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: That is correct.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am pleased to hear that, my Lords. In that case, we are at least taking a slight step forward. However, I hope that there will be other steps forward. One of the issues about which I am particularly concerned relates to local authorities. I have a great deal of sympathy with people who work on local authorities. Their powers have been filleted and their resources diminished, but at the same time their tasks and their responsibilities have been greatly multiplied. I was seeking a simple answer to the question: what are the Government going to do to fortify local authorities in order to enable them to perform their complicated and difficult tasks? They need both muscle and resources. But, as far as I can see, they are not going to get them.
	In view of the time, all I can do now is to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. However, I hope that I may register my sharp disappointment that the debate took on a DTI colour when what we were concerned with, both first and last, were transport problems. As I have no desire whatever to receive any Papers currently, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Tourism and the Rural Economy

Earl Peel: rose to call attention to the place of tourism in the future development of the rural economy; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move the Motion this afternoon and I should like to say how grateful I am to all noble Lords who have agreed to take part in this debate. Perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest in that I am a shareholder in a company registered in Wales which provides quality control services for the tourist industry in both the private sector and in various government departments around the world--but not in England.
	To get tourism into some degree of context, I can tell the House that the industry is worth £61 billion per year to the United Kingdom economy, which represents 4 per cent of gross domestic product. The overseas contribution--these are 1988 figures--was £12.7 billion, which was generated from 25.7 million visitors. Tourism in the United Kingdom employs 1.7 million people, which is 6 per cent of the UK workforce.
	Another statistic which, I have to say, I find particularly interesting is that the British Tourist Authority, whose role it is to promote Britain abroad, does so on an annual budget of £37 million, which, incidentally, is less than that received by English Nature or the Countryside Agency. I was interested to note that it managed to generate £27 of expenditure in the United Kingdom for every £1 spent. I call that pretty good value for money. I used to have considerable dealings with the BTA both in the USA and Scandinavia in the days when I was more closely involved with the tourist industry. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to it. Not only was it always an extremely good body to deal with, but it was also extremely efficient. It represents us extremely well.
	I also welcome the recently launched consultation document on rural tourism, Working for the Countryside. It is produced jointly by the English Tourism Council and the Countryside Agency. This is a significant partnership for it shows that the English Tourism Council acknowledges just how important rural Britain is to tourism, and the Countryside Agency acknowledges the importance of tourism to rural Britain. Whereas rural tourism may be responsible for only 20 per cent of the total value of the industry, in Cornwall, for example--I am sure that my noble friend Lord Arran will refer to this matter as, I believe, one of our two west country speakers in the debate--it represents 20 per cent of the GDP of the county. In many other rural areas, it will also have a disproportionate significance.
	As we are all only too well aware, the farming crisis has concentrated every rural mind on opportunities to diversify. Many new enterprises have evolved, quite a number of which cater for tourism. However, we need to recognise that "farmer tourism", if I may call it that, represents only a small part of total rural tourism. It is important that we do not get too carried away into believing that tourism is the panacea for the crisis facing agriculture. Tourism is not an easy option that can simply be seized upon to meet a perceived demand but must respond to a better informed and more sophisticated customer. This means quality, professionalism, and, of course, value for money. That final element is difficult to achieve at the moment because of the strength of the pound, both in terms of expensive imports--if I may put it that way--and cheaper exports.
	Everyone involved in tourism needs to remember that they are competing in a global market. Even a farmer's wife offering bed and breakfast in a farmhouse in Northumberland, an equestrian centre on Dartmoor or a Center Parc in Cumbria should not lose sight of that fact. I know several people on relatively low incomes who have recently travelled to Florida and regard it as extremely good value for money. We must not forget, of course, that Florida has sun, something which in this country is occasionally in short supply. Therefore, we have to make up for that in other ways. When I was involved in the tourist industry I was always told, as a rule of thumb, that holiday accommodation must always be as good, or preferably better, than what the customer experiences at home. The tourist boards can, and do, play an essential part in getting this message across by setting standards through quality control initiatives.
	To illustrate that tourism is not an easy option it is perhaps worth noting that the average term of ownership of a bed-and-breakfast establishment in Scotland is only two years. So it is clear that there needs to be a proper appreciation and understanding of the business which will often require assistance for training, marketing and investment strategy. Whereas I welcome the recent announcement of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of new resources to help rural businesses under the rural development regulation--I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will tell us what other opportunities exist--given the plethora of agencies, I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would tell the House which one is specifically responsible for co-ordinating the strategy for helping new tourism businesses to develop in rural areas, and giving the necessary advice and support. Furthermore, it would be helpful if the noble Lord could also tell the House what steps the Government are taking to make planning policies more flexible to allow the conversion of existing rural businesses, which, I suspect, in most cases will be farm businesses, to those suitable for tourist activities.
	When I used to visit BTA offices abroad I was always struck by the recurring themes that they used to promote the United Kingdom. There were always photographs of the Changing of the Guard, London buses, historical features, famous houses and, of course, the British countryside. But the point was that the "Britishness" and the traditions were always promoted. Sometimes I used to challenge that, but I was always told that that was what visitors from abroad want to see when they visit the UK. This was illustrated only too well recently when British Airways replaced the Union Jack tailfin with that ghastly psychedelic mess. I am glad to say that that situation has now been partially reversed, but, I think, only partially.
	I am also convinced that if rural Britain is to continue to attract visitors, it must offer a working countryside with strong regional identities and must not at any cost slip into being some large, nebulous theme park. I believe that that point is well made in the consultation document. I regard my next quotation as an important statement. The consultation paper states:
	"Tourism management should seek a balance between the needs of the visitor, the tourism industry, the host community and the environment".
	The expression "host community" is a ghastly term, but I think that we all know what is meant by that. That point is well made, for I believe that it is imperative to avoid conflicts of interest. There is a real danger that the forthcoming right to roam may cause that kind of conflict unless the Government show more sensitivity on that matter than they appear to be doing at the moment in another place.
	Clearly, increased tourism will help to maintain local services, but, equally, local services need to aspire to the needs of the visitor. There are also local produce marketing opportunities. Visitors who have had a good experience in an area may well buy the produce of that area if they see it on a shop or supermarket shelf. But, again, that will require specialist marketing--something that we in this country are not particularly good at and something which we must improve enormously. There are great opportunities there.
	I also welcome the special commitment in the consultation document to market towns. For too long they have lost their status. They deserve to be restored as the thriving centres of rural communities. However, I believe that this revival must revolve around a combination of all that is best from the past--history, tradition and a sense of identity--and all the best that modern technology can provide. I am delighted to note that my local newspaper, the Darlington and Stockton Times, is running an effective market town revival campaign which has caught the attention of, and some useful promises of help from, two of the north-east's rural development agencies. I hope that those promises are converted into real help.
	The downside of tourism is, of course, over-exploitation. We are undoubtedly witnessing areas such as the Lake District "being loved to death", as I believe David Bellamy said. I suspect that bold moves will be required to resolve this conflict. Great care will be necessary in the future to ensure that proper assessment procedures are in place to ensure that sustainability in all its guises--environment, infrastructure, transport, water, and sewerage--is thoroughly scrutinised. In other words, we must not destroy or irreparably damage the goose that has so steadfastly provided us with so many golden eggs.
	There is a need to monitor the cost of tourism as well as the gains. I am sure that the Minister is only too well aware of the need to consider both sides of the balance sheet. This will require a clear lead from government in co-ordinating the aspirations of the various government departments and agencies involved. There are so many that I shall not name them, but they are all competing in their own way. That will not be an easy task but I believe that it is absolutely essential.
	I draw your Lordships' attention to one aspect of tourism which I believe is conspicuous by its absence, not just from the rural consultation paper but also from other government publications. I am talking about an activity that generated direct expenditure in 1996 of £3.8 billion and a further £2.4 billion in indirect expenditure; an activity that in the same year contributed £655 million to the Government in taxes and licences, and which provides directly over 60,000 full-time jobs, and indirectly just short of 31,000 jobs. I am, of course, referring to field sports, which, apart from one small reference to fishing, failed to get a mention in the consultation document on rural tourism.
	Many of our remote rural areas generate substantial amounts of money from the letting of sporting activities, very often to visitors from abroad. This maintains employment in otherwise difficult circumstances and provides hotels with vital income, often in the difficult winter months. Indeed, many would not survive without this support. Furthermore, the knock-on effects to the local economy are obvious.
	Much play--quite rightly--is made of the importance to rural tourism of maintaining high quality landscapes and the wildlife that is associated with their habitats. There is no better example of any other activity in the British countryside that has achieved this, maintaining and managing whole swathes of landscape that might otherwise have been damaged. What is more, this has been done, by and large, at no cost to the taxpayer, entirely through the incentives of those committed to their sport. This has often been achieved against a remorseless and ill-directed tide of money which has, in too many cases, supported an environmentally unsympathetic agriculture through the common agricultural policy. What is more, field sports have managed to keep the heavily subsidised forestry industry at bay in large areas of the hills which would otherwise have been converted into millions of ranks of sterile conifers.
	From the purple heather hills to the woodlands and the copses of lowland Britain, to the rivers and wetlands that lie between, habitat and wildlife have been managed not simply for game but for a whole range of other species besides. Indeed, many of the SSSIs that we all appreciate today--some of which are now of international importance--would never have been designated but for the long traditions of field sports that have served this country so well for so long. It is about time that this Government recognised and acknowledged this hugely significant contribution to rural Britain, both in terms of employment, landscape, biodiversity and, of course, tourism.
	One last point, which I think is extremely significant, is that it is important for the Treasury to recognise that in the absence of this enormous contribution of funds either the countryside would suffer or the gap would need to be filled from the public purse. I hope therefore that in the coming White Paper the Government will recognise the contribution of field sports as a positive contribution to the countryside as a whole
	In conclusion, tourism continues to offer hope to rural Britain and vice versa; but clearly great care will be needed to maintain standards and to ensure that a balance is achieved between what is positive and what could be negative. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, tourism is a serious business which we politicians do not take seriously. Mention holidays to us and we are thinking how quickly we can pack our bags and get away from Westminster, and not of how we can help an industry which provides 350,000 jobs and, astonishingly, an £11,500 million spend in Britain's countryside each year. That is why I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for giving us the opportunity to debate the new English Tourism Council and Countryside Agency document, Rural Tourism: Working for the Countryside, and to the Government for their active engagement with the vital tourism and hospitality industry. After all, leisure and pleasure provide a higher percentage share of jobs and prosperity proportionately in our rural areas than in our towns and cities. Those who cheerfully work in the tourism and hospitality trade should be regarded as the heroes and heroines of British industry.
	Of course, tourism's fortunes provide a sharp contrast with agriculture, fisheries and forestry, which are industries in decline and now represent only 4 per cent of economic activity in Britain's countryside. It must be right to prompt and promote this healthy adolescent of tourism while farming convalesces from its current woes.
	We should not, of course, overstate tourism's restorative powers. The loss of the Synchatron project at Daresbury in Cheshire will not be compensated for by the fact that Daresbury is the home and birthplace of Lewis Carroll, himself a potent visitor attraction. We need more than that to bring a feline grin to our faces in Cheshire; but every tourism-related job helps.
	In placing our faith in tourism and in diversification in the farming industry, we must advocate sensible policies to help such diversification to work. The fact that the average term of ownership of a bed-and-breakfast hotel in the Highlands of Scotland is a mere two years should give us pause for thought. Such enterprises desperately need support services, such as good SME business advice, marketing and networking, to make them truly sustainable.
	With that caveat, let me nevertheless voice my optimism about tourism and give your Lordships' House some examples from Britain's finest county, Cheshire, of how constructive tourist policies can revive flagging businesses in the countryside and bring new ones to fruition. The Cheshire Fine Food Trail, for instance, acknowledges that British farming and food production is changing in nature, and does something about it. The previous emphasis on quantity food production is replaced by highlighting quality and specialist foods. Thus The Cheshire Fine Food Trail, a free map which entwines tourism and economic development, gives information on some of Cheshire's finest food, including cheese, ice-cream and venison, and mixes information on visits to producers with knowledge of where to find a local pub on the country trail out of Cheshire's market towns--a win-win result for producer, publican and public. It is one which I know will be appreciated by my colleague from Cheshire, the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton.
	The use of modern technology is crucial to another Cheshire initiative, which will have in addition beneficial environmental results. The proposed launch of A Walker's Cheshire will attract visitors to the remoter parts of the county by providing a dedicated walker's website for the dedicated walker, thereby refreshing those parts of the county that other tourist trails do not reach. In this, of course, the trail is a paradigm of tourism itself. Tourism is quintessentially an industry which successfully penetrates the nooks and crannies of rural Britain where other industries fear to tread. Strengthening the countryside for the tourist has the happy consequential effect of strengthening its supporting infrastructure--pubs, post offices, banks, shops and transport--to the distinct advantage of those living and working in the countryside.
	But more can be done. The Working for the Countryside document asks whether the British Tourist Authority should have a role in promoting Britain's countryside in its overseas literature. The answer is a resounding "yes". Here is how and why. Last week, returning to Cheshire on the train, I came across four American tourists in my carriage. As we passed Peckforton and Beeston castles--local landmarks eight miles out of Chester--our visitors wondered what castles they were and what incidents of English history they concealed. It occurred to me there and then how the railway carriage might itself have contained an explanation in written or televisual form of the historical panorama that was passing before our eyes out of the carriage window, and that such an explanation might, in turn, have prolonged their stay in my home town by encouraging them to explore Chester's fascinating hinterland of historic castles and comely countryside.
	One other thought occurs to me. It is the fact that in two years' time, those American visitors will be jangling euro coins and notes in their pockets. Are Britain's village shops and guesthouses literally ready for change and to change money? They, and we, will need to be, to maintain a competitive advantage over other EU countries which will have the advantage of a single currency available in town and country. It is not just Britain's farmers who will profit from the euro. All the countryside stands to gain.
	Mention of Europe brings me to a deficiency of the Working for the Countryside document, whose first key issue underscores the need to,
	"ensure co-ordination between national, regional and local initiatives",
	entirely omitting mention of vital European links. In an earlier passage, allusion is made to European tourism policy. In my view, it is vital to maximise use of funds and policy initiatives concerning Europe's rural areas which can so perceptibly benefit Britain's countryside. It is one reason why I believe that Britain should be foremost in encouraging tourism to be accepted as an EU competency at this year's intergovernmental conference.
	I have one word of caution, however. While warmly welcoming EU rural initiatives like the LEADER + programme and the Objective 1 moneys, which will bring employment to west Wales, Cornwall and Yorkshire, I hope that the Government are rigorous in vetting those moneys applied under the rubric of tourism. Such moneys should be spent in the most sustainable way possible. Tourism should not be enlisted as a catch-all for second-rate schemes which cannot be pigeon-holed elsewhere in development programmes, as has sometimes happened in the past.
	I have two further points. First, there is much anxiety about housing development in Britain's rural areas. I share those concerns but recognise the need for adequate social housing. But why should such developments not be of the highest quality in design and materials? Would it not be a tourist attraction to build some new villages in the countryside which have, say, the architectural merit of the Italianate village of Portmeirion in north Wales? I am sure that we have the talent in this country to construct new-build that satisfies common objectives of much needed housing and distinctive architecture. I should also love to see the siting of a new-build art gallery in Britain's countryside, as an outrigger of Tate Britain perhaps, similar to the Kroller-Muller museum at Otterloo in the heart of Holland's countryside, putting art at the heart of Britain's countryside.
	Finally, I return to Cheshire for my final suggestion which relates to fox-hunting and drag-hunting. Some of your Lordships, I know, fear job losses in our rural areas should fox-hunting be abolished. I share Sir Paul McCartney's belief that drag-hunting as a substitute will not only preserve jobs but could increase them. After all, there are many in the equestrian community who abhor fox-hunting but who love riding. If hunting were rid of its most unacceptable feature--the killing of the fox--more of those attracted to the pageantry, colour and display associated with hunting would be drawn in as visitors; indeed, as tourists. In addition, would it be too fanciful to suggest that a museum could be inaugurated in a hunting county like Cheshire to explain the development of hunting in Britain and its transformation into the safer and more inclusive sport of drag-hunting? Perhaps the urban fox whose trail runs through Downing Street might pass that suggestion on to the Prime Minister, whose supreme interest is to help Britain to transform itself into a modern, tolerant and outward-looking country, fit for heroes to live in and for tourists to visit.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Peel for initiating this debate and for so ably calling our attention to the place of tourism in the future development of rural policy. We have had many debates on rural issues in recent months. This is yet another aspect of rural development. As we heard from my noble friend, tourism creates jobs and, bringing £11.5 billion to the economy of rural areas, it creates incomes for many local people, shops, post offices, banks, pubs and others. However, as he so rightly said, it is no panacea in the farming crisis which we face at the moment.
	In many cases, tourism has created indirect support to local people who can enjoy more varied services, since none of those services could survive on local business alone. But it is an irony that the viability of local business is strengthened by the tourist pound, while the strength of the pound in the United Kingdom and government's failure to redress the balance through the agrimonetary system over recent months have already driven many people from the land, and young people are losing faith in any prospects in farming or work in the countryside.
	It has been recognised in many debates in this House that the negative effect on rural economies through a strategically weakened agriculture is likely to outweigh the benefit provided by support for non-farming interests. It is equally recognised that neglected hills and upland, or unfarmed lowlands, is not an option if we are to encourage tourists to visit those attractive areas which we ourselves enjoy, bearing in mind that growth in the tourism industry can lead to a major source of employment. In the context of tourism, protecting the environment and contributing to the rural economy, social fabric and maintaining an attractive, habitable and viable landscape for the enjoyment of others are vital since few people wish to visit a barren waste. At the same time, there are negative effects of traffic congestion, dealing with large crowds and clearing litter. It is not surprising that environmental policy has been, and still is, seen as contradicting the objectives of development policy. Therefore, the core of our consideration should be focused on finding the right balance rather than on making a choice between "enhancing the tourism industry" and "considering environmental consequences" out of context.
	Any attempt to achieve such balance ought to include the extent to which tourism may prove a major cause of environmental harm against the prospects of long-term economic sustainability. In finding that balance, the emphasis should be on finding suitable and justifiable grounds for interaction rather than shifting ingredients at random, from the one bowl into the other.
	The first task is to decide on assessment criteria focused on impact and control, bearing in mind that tourism includes a variable determined by seasonality, and therefore an important factor in calculation procedures. Seasonality is not necessarily a detrimental factor if the right formula can be applied--in other words, based on the spread of income and expenditure. Assessment criteria should also include each and every option to maximise the benefits of tourism such as improvement of public transport and roads, which will be of benefit to schools and other organisations all year round. Assessment criteria should not ignore issues such as space available on trains. For example, if people want to take their bikes on the train, they have to book in advance and space is always limited. Compare that with the position in Denmark, where trains are crammed full of cyclists and their bikes.
	With reference to the way in which the Government decide on assessment criteria and the subsequent recommendations, I hope that in his reply the Minister will comment on press speculation regarding the imposition of tourist taxes and congestion tolls on popular beauty spots under a blueprint for a reform of the countryside. What form would such schemes take? A Cabinet Office report suggests that they could be useful in rationing access to overcrowded areas and generating revenue to invest in improving local infrastructure. The authors of the inquiry said that the package could form the basis for the most radical transformation of rural policy for 50 years. It certainly would be. In setting out to modernise one of the last untouched aspects of the post-war settlement, the report also calls for an overhaul of the planning system to give more support to enterprise.
	Rural tourism requires good transport links, and the Government appear to be proud of their achievements. Perhaps I may quote briefly from a report to the Tourist Summit. It stated:
	"We are developing a modern, safe and efficient transport system for the 21st century that will rival the best in Europe. We have made great progress since the 1998 White Paper".
	That was written before we heard the debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Peyton on holes in the roads and the experience of those who have attempted to get from Euston to this House in reasonable time. As my noble friend rightly said, the matter requires a transport debate. A debate on tourism is equally important.
	The report cites successes: for example, £1.8 billion to improve local and public transport and road maintenance over the next three years; £700 million to implement transport plans produced by local authorities; and £3.3 billion of private sector investment for the £6 billion Channel Tunnel rail link. Those figures are impressive. However, will the Minister explain how the Government intend to put that money into rural transport and how the sum can be positively interpreted against the huge amount taken out of rural areas: for example, by stealth taxes on the motorist?
	I repeat: rural tourism will prosper only if the countryside is managed correctly. Unfortunately, the Government's Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is a missed opportunity to address the real problems of the countryside such as over-development, badly sited mobile phone masts, loss of rural services and the crisis in agriculture. So the challenges facing rural areas are often thwarted by increased legislation and unnecessary regulations leading to increased costs and, therefore, the demise of smaller rural businesses, with negative influences on entire communities.
	Educating urban people about rural issues brings its own conflict. Such education is essential to meet the objectives of improving tourism, recreation and field sports, which are important in the countryside, and to meet the needs of those who derive their living from the land and those who are concerned with wildlife and habitats. Comprehensive consultation is required, based on well-balanced socio-demographic variables. The outcome of any analysis of views needs to be incorporated into an overall policy.
	I declare an interest. I have the privilege of being president of the Cotswolds AONB. The area is known internationally as the quintessential English landscape, together with Cheshire. I am reminded that I have Cheshire blood in my veins. The value of such areas of "outstanding natural beauty" is less well known than it should be. The view from the hotel, bed-and-breakfast, holiday cottage, caravan or tent business, needs managing and requires investment.
	The Cotswolds are criss-crossed by 17 local authorities, three Government Offices, three RDAs, and three different tourist boards. As we speak, my AONB is meeting with a variety of accommodation providers to explore the potential for visitors to add a nominal sum to their bill to reinvest in the countryside. We need to exploit those natural resources in a way in which provision for tourism also provides for and assists local communities and services, not limited to improving provision of rural transport but also tourist information points within pubs and post offices, as well as realistic opportunities to promote local produce and local food, which is extremely important.
	The need to remove barriers to rural tourism should be given full consideration and requires a review of the assessment criteria. It should take into account the benefits of dialogue with such bodies as AONBs and the need to brief tourist information centre staff on opportunities for tourism and recreation.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for introducing the debate. Perhaps I may comment from a broad standpoint. Effective tourism is in some respects intrinsically at odds with too great an intervention on the part of government. What people look for most when they travel--whether they are Britons travelling within Britain or people from abroad coming to this country--is difference, flavour, idiosyncrasy, variety and diversity.
	Two days ago, I spoke with the chief executive of the East of England Tourist Board, Tess Wright. She wrote to me, making the interesting point that,
	"One of the key motivations behind travel is the opportunity to experience somewhere different. Yet widespread travel and the harmonisation of cultures is making the world increasingly homogenous".
	How true that is; and how true and universal it is of travel abroad. I suspect that our concern for the natural ecology will one day be seen as rather bizarre against our almost total lack of concern for the human ecology and the variety within it.
	I put it to the House that, in spite of their good intentions, many of the initiatives put forward by previous governments as well as this one have, if anything, a suffocating effect rather than a liberating one. Some noble Lords may have obtained from the Printed Paper Office the Draft Regional Planning Guidance for--in this case, my native part of the world--East Anglia. I have in front of me one of two volumes. If one looks at the section devoted to tourism, sport recreation and the arts--which seem to go together these days--one will be fairly surprised to realise that there is now in existence a so-called Cultural Consortium for the East of England (CCEE).
	It goes alongside the Development Agency which will no doubt have been established last year for your Lordships' regions as well as for mine. In East Anglia we are lucky enough to have the Government Office of East Anglia, the East of England Local Government Conference, the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities (SCEALA) and the East of England Regional Assembly, to name but a few.
	We need to face up to the fact that a great deal of the work of these worthy bodies is completely ineffectual. I do not for a minute want to disparage those who produce such reports, but this is a massive, two-volume consultation document, and respondents had to reply to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions within two months. Anyone who is familiar with the speed with which local organisations work, the cycle of their meetings and the need to consult wider groups than merely committees, councils or whatever other bodies one is talking about knows it is nonsensical to pretend that consultation on a massive document of this kind, which covers huge areas--tourism, sport, recreation, the arts and a great deal else and their overall planning--is an effective exercise.
	My second point is related to the first. I am sure that noble Lords will be aware of the fantastic "killer" document Rural Economies produced at Christmas by the Cabinet Office. There is some very good stuff in it. However, such documents have a dirigiste quality about them. For example, at one point Rural Economies talks about new commitments to rural communities and a specific commitment to market towns, which was also touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. But the document goes on to say:
	"The Government should consider introducing a new commitment to market towns, recognising the key role these settlements play in rural economies and rural communities. This commitment could be realised in part by more effective integration of the wide range of existing initiatives and in part by the introduction of new initiatives".
	We are inundated and drowned by task forces and initiatives. I fear that the citizens of this country are nowhere near many of them, if any. En masse, these task forces and initiatives have a psychologically disabling, rather than enabling, effect. I call to mind my home town of Sudbury and its council. I doubt whether many of those excellent councillors have any apprehension of just what is being done in their name.
	It is about time that we looked at one root cause: the lack of vigour in some of the activities connected with tourism within the rural economy. Over the past decade the number of overnight stays by tourists in rural areas has remained static, while tourism in general and affluence have much increased.
	I believe that one of the keys to a healthy, organic and diverse tourist economy is the restoration of local government powers. Some noble Lords may regard that as a rather big idea to introduce into a specific debate; I do not. I believe that we must restore local autonomy so that, in turn, we can restore local diversity, variety and organic growth, not pursue initiatives that are showered down, however beneficently, from Downing Street, Whitehall, the regions or any of the new bodies, for example the Cultural Consortium for the East of England.
	The key factor which underpins the long-term health of tourism is quality of life. Tourists seek a different and identifiable quality of life, and it is that which underpins the economic health of rural areas. It is interesting to note that 90 per cent of businesses in rural areas employ fewer than 10 people, which is a much higher proportion than in the country as a whole. Two-thirds of those small businesses are created by incomers who say that, overwhelmingly, the reason for siting them in rural areas is precisely the quality of life. I believe that the quality of life can be preserved, enhanced and diversified most effectively in rural areas if we look at, and act upon, local government powers. I say no more than that in view of the time that is available to me.
	We all have our wish lists of particular improvements that we should like to see take place. For example, can we do something about the proliferation of road signs? Although this is a small point, it is at least as important as holes in the road. Road signs are a severe scar on many, if not most, rural areas.
	Can we not do much more to promote the parish churches of this country? Rural areas are thick with parish churches. Many people, including myself, regard these churches as Britain's greatest single asset both internally and in terms of incoming tourist. Those churches are vastly under-appreciated and under-used. I commend the activities of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, who has initiated a scheme in Suffolk of assured church openings, with guidance to people on arrival to encourage them to sample, as they rarely do, the glories on their doorstep.
	I refer also to local pubs and post offices. In East Anglia pubs close at the rate of six a month. Like post offices, pubs are crucial to both tourism and the health of local communities.
	I refer next to local arts. I am a trustee of Gainsborough's house in Sudbury, which is a marvellous local and regional arts resource. However, the ability of that resource, and many other arts centres, theatres and so on to improve what they do and the facilities that they provide depends to a significant degree upon secure long-term funding. All arts organisations say that they do not have that.
	We all wish for many things in this debate, but I hope that what I have said is of use to the outcome of it.

Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Peel for introducing this debate and covering all the major points so splendidly. It was also a great pleasure to hear the noble Lord opposite extolling the virtues of Cheshire cheese. That is the first time that I have heard it from the Benches opposite. Let us hope that more noble Lords on the Benches opposite will extol the virtues of Cheshire cheese.
	By chance, it was 10 years ago this month that I had the privilege of becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. During that period I have taken part in innumerable debates upon the rural economy and the state of British agriculture under both governments. Both governments have expressed a good deal of sympathy with, and talked much about, the need to restructure land use, agriculture and the rural economy. However, neither government appears to face up to those issues which make it possible to carry out that restructuring. It is on that aspect that I should like to concentrate and put to the Minister a number of questions.
	I declare an interest as chairman of an organisation called Enterprise Business Solutions which gives advice to farmers and others involved in country activities who wish to diversify. As other noble Lords have said, clearly this is not everybody's cup of tea. One requires special skills, facilities, finance and opportunity to diversify from a traditional agricultural holding to an organisation involved in tourism or any other economic activity. Once one has the necessary skill, the desire to change and the ability to work very hard to make other ideas work in a rural setting, one requires the finance and, above all, the necessary planning permission. I emphasise the need for planning permission, to which all noble Lords who have spoken so far have referred.
	Successive governments have said time and again that if we want to restructure something the planning system has to be sympathetic, and take away the unnecessary legislation and controls which make restructuring virtually impossible. The question of how we encourage more interesting tourism in rural areas needs to be addressed seriously.
	In his reply, I should like the Minister to tell me why the Government--they have been positive about support for economic development and the need to create jobs and foster new businesses--have made it a statutory responsibility on a planning authority to consider the environmental but not the economic issues of its decisions. If we wish to look at alternative ways of creating economic activities in the rural areas, and in areas of declining agricultural support, that issue has to be addressed.
	I made the same points to the previous government. They took no notice. It does not look as though this Government will take much notice. However, the Minister who sits there smiling at me may change all that and generate some enthusiasm which we have not seen to date. I did not hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in the previous debate. However, he generally comments on the fact that government ears are generally for decorative purposes only. On this issue, that has certainly been the case.
	Although we are debating tourism in rural areas, one cannot isolate it from the importance of tourism in urban areas. People often stay in hotels in an urban area--the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, nods at me. People can stay in the Grosvenor Hotel in Chester and yet wander out to the rural areas of North Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire. That relationship is important. One cannot isolate what happens in towns from what occurs in rural areas. Those who stay in towns bringing wealth and activity to those areas then move out into the rural community because they want the quality of the rural community. My noble friend Lord Plumb made the point strongly. People do not want to see dereliction. And if we do not assist other wealth-creating activities in rural areas we shall have continuing dereliction within our rural communities as farmers are more and more unable to provide the resources to maintain their buildings, hedges and land. It is important to recognise that the two factors are closely connected.
	My noble friend Lord Peel referred to country sports and country pursuits. In many areas of rural economy they have been the key to maintaining activities. I do not speak of Cheshire or Lancashire but of parts of Wales and the more marginal areas where those are the only commercial activities which are attracting outside wealth. Many of us know Americans or people from Europe who come to Great Britain for country sports and country pursuits. They spend a lot of money, and they do not take much away with them. If they take a couple of pheasants they are lucky. The benefit that those people bring to our countryside must be appreciated. Without them, we have seriously to address the economic viability of those areas.
	It is an important debate. I hope that the Minister will address the planning aspect which is key to the issue. I congratulate those who have taken part in the debate, and my noble friend who introduced it.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl for so eloquently introducing this important topic. I have several interests to declare. First, I am legally obliged (which, I hasten to add, I much enjoy) to open my home and garden to the public. I try to farm and as such am custodian to 1,500 acres of beautiful rural Berwickshire countryside; and I should state that I am a life member of the Countryside Alliance.
	As the Prime Minister finally admitted last Thursday, farming is in real crisis. He has urged those of us involved in agriculture to diversify. But in remote rural areas this is not possible. There is no alternative to farming on a barren Glenshee mountain face. However, with farming incomes being at an all-time low, tourism can and should provide a vital element of countryside income. I have to say, I find it deeply distressing to see how few Members of the Government are taking part in, or, indeed, for that matter even listening to this important debate.
	Well-managed quality tourism in rural areas provides employment and economic benefits in these economically fragile areas. Tourism also assists in sustaining local businesses, such as shops, pubs and hotels, through expenditure by visitors providing additional income which in turn enables such businesses to remain viable. In this way, local services for local people have a better chance of being maintained, which in turn helps to maintain a good quality of life for people in rural areas. In this way, tourism increasingly must play a key role in sustainable development in rural areas. A prosperous rural environment is vital to the British countryside. This is what tourists from both within and without the United Kingdom want to visit and, most importantly, to enjoy.
	Tourism in rural Scotland has declined, while tourism to the cities has improved. In the light of that it is necessary to look at opportunities to encourage tourism opportunities in rural areas.
	Traditional sporting activities, for example, provide a quality tourism experience and help to sustain local jobs. Those activities often take place in the "quieter" months from a tourism perspective and, properly promoted, would assist in extending the season which is seen to be so vitally important to Scottish tourism.
	As regards informal countryside recreation--walking, cycling and horse-riding--legislation is proposed in Scotland and in England and Wales to increase opportunities for the public to enjoy the countryside. Such activities provide low impact, sustainable tourism opportunities, and along with traditional sporting activities can possibly extend the season.
	Unfortunately the Scottish tourism strategy illustrates a lack of joined-up thinking, with these activities not being seen as a niche market. Specifically identified, they can improve tourism in rural areas. That is despite the fact that study after study shows that people visit Scotland for the countryside and landscape.
	Prices for admission to tourist attractions are ridiculously low in relationship, for example, to sporting events. To give one small example, we at home this year are charging £6 per adult which entitles a visitor to three hours of enjoyment. Had the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, visited Murrayfield on Sunday he would have paid £35 to gain entry for 90 minutes of enjoyment. Twenty years ago we used regularly to get 14,000 visitors a year. What with the strong pound and the high cost of petrol in rural areas, we are now lucky to get 8,000 visitors as more and more UK residents take advantage of cheap package holidays abroad.
	If, for example, we look at one aspect of rural tourism, in Scotland shooting, for example, accounts for 2,171 full-time jobs. A further 7,212 full-time jobs are directly or indirectly reliant on shooting. Fifty per cent of our tourism income at home this year will be field sports based. Direct or indirect expenditure on shooting in Scotland has steadily grown over the years and now exceeds £100 million. Thus shooting is vital to help maintain Scotland's rural population at around 20 per cent.
	Outside rural areas the conservation benefits of shooting often go unrecognised. Conservation and shooting go hand in hand. Gamekeepers, for example, in Scotland have a management interest in 3½ million hectares. Forty-eight per cent of Scottish gamekeepers manage land that is in an SSSI; 15 per cent of them manage land that is in an ESA; and 13 per cent in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
	Over 150,000 people participate in shooting in Scotland. To put this into perspective, that is more than those who participate in nine other sports, including rugby and hockey.
	I do not think that anyone realises the real dangers of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and, although a devolved matter, pressure must be put on him to withdraw it. The First Minister must persuade him, but if necessary this pressure must come from the Prime Minister himself. The horrific consequences of this Bill will be shattering for the rural economy, an important element of rural tourism for Scotland.
	As sure as night follows day these same consequences will happen in due course in England and Wales, which will result in anarchy in the countryside. The real irony is that if such a Bill became law it still would not save the life of one single wild animal. It would also be extremely expensive to police. The mind boggles at the idea of helicopters patrolling the Lammermuir Hills twice weekly. And I cannot believe that there is a single Chief Constable in the country who would wish to spend his limited resources implementing this Bill.
	The noble Lord's right honourable friend the First Minister was recently overheard to have said something along the following lines: "I do wish this hunting thing would go away--it is the civil liberty aspect which scares me". Surely there are far more pressing problems to be tackled by the Scottish Executive and Parliament. It must not be forgotten that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has admitted publicly he is only bringing forward this Bill to test the system. And it stinks.
	One of the real pleasures of field sports is the people you meet. All classes and creeds are united in a shared love of the sport, a delight of wild places and the duty of care of our natural heritage. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I urge Her Majesty's Government to be more imaginative with rural planning laws and to give rural tourism a higher priority.
	The Prime Minister has often been quoted as saying, "This Government will govern for all the people". For those of us involved in rural tourism we have not so far seen much evidence of that. I urge Her Majesty's Government to put measures in place at once in order that we can all have a viable and beautiful countryside so that we can pass it on to future generations of this country to enjoy with pride.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Peel for giving us the opportunity to debate tourism and the rural economy. I agreed with all that he said, as I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, particularly about the legislation before the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe that many noble Lords in this House realise how vindictive it is and the dangerous repercussions which will occur in Scotland if it is passed unamended.
	The countryside, the landscape and the rural economy must be in a healthy state if tourism is to prosper. At the present time it is not so. I am a farmer and I know that the farming element is at an all-time low. What are the Government doing about it? I am disappointed that there is no agriculture Minister on the Front Bench today.
	For two years the industry has made it plain to the Government what a serious crisis surrounds it. Last week the Prime Minister called a summit, but at the end of the day all farmers believe that although £200 million is valuable, when spread over all the farmers in the United Kingdom it is a drop in the ocean. I hope that the Prime Minister made an impact on those representing the food chain who have a great deal to do with the prices that farmers must now accept.
	It is important that the Minister brings home to his colleagues in MAFF and the rest of the Government just how serious the situation is. We must do something about the exchange rate, despite what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, and we must urgently tackle the numerous rules and regulations which are thrust on farmers almost weekly. Without profitable farming, as was rightly said by my noble friends Lord Wade and Lord Plumb, the countryside cannot prosper.
	In the main, farming made the countryside: the woodlands, the hedges, the well-cultivated fields and the heather moorland, which takes a lot of managing. All that is due to good husbandry by the farming community. Yet they are receiving little thankful support from the Government. Farming supports the rural economy--the blacksmiths, the machinery operators and the feeding stuff mills--but banks and post offices are rapidly becoming non-existent.
	I have seen the reverse. I was in northern New York State last fall driving in an area where farming has failed. There was nothing but derelict farm houses, broken fences, uncultivated fields and woodlands cut down without any sense of replanting. No one wants to see that. What tourist would want to see such dereliction of the countryside? As my noble friend Lord Wade rightly said, that will happen here if steps are not taken to make agriculture profitable.
	We must also re-examine our national parks. We face overcrowding, litter and erosion of the hillside, which I can see through binoculars from my home in the south of Scotland looking into the Lake District. We know of the traffic jams, too. Sometimes they overwhelm the tourists and they will not return. I am certain that neither the New Forest nor the South Downs will benefit from becoming national parks.
	It is all very well to say that farming must change, certainly within the CAP, but, as my noble friend Lord Wade rightly pointed out, that is not easy. Diversification, the conversion of farm buildings and everything else requires a cash flow and capital. Most farmers have neither. There may be grants from regions and enterprise in Scotland, but if one undertakes a major conversion of a farm building into, say, a tea-room, one ends up paying additional council tax. At the present time, it is not easy to develop alternative forms of income in the countryside.
	Furthermore, if one wants to develop, it is essential to be in a strategically satisfactory position. It is no use developing around the corner, out of sight of the main road, because the majority of tourists will not leave the main road. Again, that reduces substantially the number of farms that can diversify.
	The Government will--as, I have no doubt, will the Minister when he replies--take great credit for their rural transport plan. However, that does not affect tourists because they arrive in package tour buses and the rest come by motor car. Those with a motor car say, "Heavens above. I am paying nearly £4 a gallon". How on earth does that encourage anyone to visit the West Highlands of Scotland, where fuel costs even more than £4 a gallon, to see the great tourist attractions that we have there? I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite taken on board the serious situation of rural transport relative to the cost of fuel, both petrol and diesel.
	How right my noble friend Lord Wade was to raise the matter of the importance of planning. Anyone who is currently trying to get anything through any planning authority knows that it is a nightmare. The procedure goes on and on: as councils feel that they must try to be transparent, a month goes by as matters are passed to sub-committees and they come back again another month later, often ending up in an appeal to various Secretaries of State. It is very difficult to get through the planning procedure. We must try to find a more speedy and flexible way of obtaining decisions. Even if the answer is "no", that is something! When one is trying to improve the countryside, it is very dispiriting simply to sit on the fence waiting for it to crumble while nothing happens.
	In the same way, I feel depressed at the attitude of the last and perhaps the present Government to objects in the countryside such as telephone masts, wind farms and pylons. I raised that matter in a debate in another place in October 1996, highlighting the exact damage that telephone masts caused in the rural countryside. Yet, even now, nothing has happened. Planning authorities have very little control over the erection of telephone masts. Almost every hill between my home and Glasgow or Edinburgh has a wireless mast stuck on the top. I believe that it is high time that we took a tougher stance and stopped it happening.
	I finish by broadening a point which was rightly raised by my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, concerning country sport. Sport forms an extremely important part of the countryside, particularly for tourists. In particular, I want to highlight the lack of action in relation to fishing. A tremendous amount of money comes into the Borders--as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will know--from people who wish to fish on the Tweed and further north on the Spey, the Dee and the Don, and so on; yet all those rivers are being affected dramatically by the continuation of drift netting off the north-east coast of England. Therefore, it is an English responsibility.
	The English have objected every time the Scottish Office has tried to resolve the matter; so, too, have the Environment Agency and its predecessors. Some licences have been reduced but last year the catch of salmon was up substantially. Every salmon that is caught in the North Sea will not reach the rivers of Scotland to spawn and develop fishing which is such an important tourist attraction to the country towns of Scotland and, indeed, to the North of England.
	The Labour Party, which referred in its manifesto to an "anglers' charter", was going to do everything possible--move Heaven and earth--to help the fishermen. However, it has done nothing except to set up a commission which I believe is to report some time. However, when will we see action to ensure that the wild salmon of the sea reach the rivers of Scotland and the North of England? Scotland banned drift netting years ago. It is an absolute disgrace that England has not done so thus far.
	All in all, I agree entirely with everything that has been said on this side of the House and, indeed, with much of what was said about Cheshire, except for drag hunting, which I do not want to go into now. I believe that the Government must look seriously at the way that they treat the countryside. They talk a great deal about it but do nothing.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, it is to be hoped that by his judicious and timely choice of this debate, my noble friend Lord Peel will succeed in obtaining from the Minister, when he comes to reply, at least a statement about when we shall see the rural White Paper. It has been hanging about for over a year and I believe that the time has come when we should know what progress has been made.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison--a somewhat lonely figure on those Benches--that a national hunting museum is being established, quite correctly, at Melton Mowbray. However, I can give him some comfort that the historian of the Tarporley Hunt is on our advisory committee and is being extremely helpful. Departmental liaison Peers are now being appointed by the mass of special advisers that the leaders in the Lords now have. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is not at least supported by the appropriate departmental liaison Peer.
	This debate takes place at a time when, as has already been said, the pressure on the agricultural budget is downwards and downwards. To counteract that, the new buzzword seems to be "diversification". Alternative activities hold out some future. I suspect that when the noble Lord comes to reply, he will make some play of the powers of the rural development agencies and the help that they may be able to give. The awful truth is that the rural development agencies have been stripped of the one power that would really help; namely, the ability to give grants for converting farm buildings and farm machinery. That was taken away from them and given to the urban development agencies. Therefore, those grants are no longer available. In fact, the rural development agencies represent, purely and simply, a way of trying to encourage people in the countryside to think in terms of European regions.
	As has already been said, country life is now at a cross-roads between the mirages of city life, with its claims to social, economic and cultural advantages, and the growing demand for a better quality of life, far from pollution and other worries. Today, in the age of the Internet and telecommunications, rural dwellers have many strengths. Each year the statistics show the terrific desire and need of people to return to their roots. Let us look at the demand for countryside holidays, and the opening and visiting of stately homes, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who has already dealt with that point. At present, rural tourism, sport and accommodation to suit all budgets are a lifeline in the countryside, as are farm trails and, above all, the contribution made by country sports: hunting, shooting and fishing.
	As my noble friend Lord Peel has already said, the total budget of the three country sports amounts to £3.8 billion a year, as researched by the Cobham Research Institute in 1997. I say to my noble friend Lord Wade that it is not just "a brace of pheasants"; the actual worth of game sold from the countryside today is some £18 million. That is a good many braces of pheasants. Even with the poor fishing, fishing is worth £0.65 million. Today, an income of over £9 million from venison comes into the countryside.
	What have the Government done to help the 3.3 million people who go to rural areas to fish? If one talks to any fisherman today, what will he tell you? The biggest plague for fishermen is cormorants, which come in and decimate inland fisheries. One constructive thing that the Government could do would be to say that we shall have a "no fly zone" for cormorants beyond the high-tide area. They are a sea-nesting, sea-feeding bird and are not part of the English countryside.
	What are the Government going to do about the grey seal population? When the fishing was good, the grey seal population was limited to 25,000. It is now 109,000 and growing at 8 per cent per year.
	What will the Government do to help the fishermen regarding the fact that the Danes are now removing all the sand eels in order to fire their power stations despite the fact that there has been a report which says that sand eel fishing should cease? What about sea lice? I refer also not only to legal sea netting, but also to illegal sea netting. Those matters work against the 3.3 million people who come to fish in our countryside.
	What will the Government do to help the 0.75 million shooters who come as tourists to rural areas? We were told that no action was to be taken against the shooting community; and yet the Home Affairs Select Committee is inquiring into the ownership of airguns, shotguns and firearms. It is to propose further regulations. Nobody seems to realise that if only the rules and law relating to airguns were properly enforced, there would be no more problems in that sphere.
	What have the Government done to make it easier for more people to shoot and enjoy the countryside? They have banned lead shot over a wide area, far beyond the necessary wetland areas and have spread that ban to the inclusion of snipe and golden plover, adding to a quarry list. They are forcing people out of shooting simply because the price of non-lead cartridges is £16 for 25. That makes it a very expensive hobby.
	There has been a complete failure to meet the demands of the Game Conservancy Trust that we should do something about avian predation and the densities, and have some experiments, licensed by the EU, on translocation of avian predators.
	Finally, what are the Government doing to help the quarter of a million people who come into the rural countryside as visitors and residents to follow hounds, directly employing some 16,000 people and indirectly creating some 60,000 full-time jobs? It is not appropriate today to discuss the question of a ban on hunting with hounds. We all await the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It is significant that The Times today states categorically that the Home Secretary will take no action until he has had time to consider the recommendations of the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
	In my county of Leicestershire, the money spent on hunting (and brought into one county) is £9.2 million, and some 240 direct jobs are involved. That is only one county's expenditure from a total annual expenditure of £243 million by the hunts of England.
	In conclusion, I draw attention to something which I believe helps the countryside enormously and helps our tourist industry; that is, the marvellous part played by the quality of our sporting press--The Field, Country Life, Horse and Hound, and the Shooting Times. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Willoughby on adding a fifth title and a fifth quality magazine to that list. Every single one of those magazines is read by four people. Whatever the circulation figures are, they should be multiplied by four. Their articles and their presentation of countryside matters whet the appetite of people for rural visits and sportsmanship. They make a notable contribution to our rural economy.

Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may make the point that what I sought to explain was that a visitor from Germany may spend, perhaps, £10,000 on a week's visit and all he takes home with him is a brace of pheasants.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, we should prefer him to spend dollars rather than euros.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships to know that there is a Welsh dimension to the subject of this debate. I add my compliments to those already received by my noble friend Lord Peel on initiating this debate.
	First, the Welsh farming unions and the Country Landowners' Association in Wales welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement last week of extra funding for dairy, beef and sheep farmers. But, of course, they regarded it as a kiss of life for a patient in need of major surgery; and farming in Wales is, indeed, critically ill and in need of intensive care if it is to survive on a sustainable scale. It needs long-term nursing and care to prosper. There is not much sign of that from this Government. Indeed, the Government seem to be totally at a loss as to what to do. Of course, we are extremely worried about that.
	The crux of our problem in Wales is that so much depends on rural prosperity. After all, we are a country where the farming units are very small for the most part and, therefore, fragile in adverse economic circumstances. I am told that the average farm income is now below £5,000 per year. The dire effects of that are beginning to become visible in the countryside.
	It is not simply the ancillary businesses in villages and market towns which are dependent on a successful, agricultural community. Whole swathes of life and the language and culture that go with the community are dependent on it. We draw our teachers, nurses and many of our professional people--doctors, lawyers and so on--from that community. If it is weak and its future unpromising, the whole fabric will disintegrate. That could happen sooner than many think, as some of your Lordships have already implied.
	If I were limited to one example of the extent of dependence on the land and farming families, I should refer to my personal experience of attending a major North Wales hospital last year. I was really struck by the fact that a high proportion of the nurses came from farming families in the hinterland of the Clwydian hills.
	Perhaps I should not have been so surprised as I was, but my stay at the hospital brought home to me very forcibly the extent of our dependence on a thriving, hard-working, conscientious agricultural and rural community and the human resources which that community provides.
	We have heard already that people who live in rural areas have undoubtedly been hit very hard in recent years. There are not only the well-known difficulties--the farmers whose incomes have fallen so drastically in the wake of the strong pound and other problems--but there are also those relentlessly rising fuel costs of transport, heating and power and the constant erosion of essential services such as those provided by sub-post offices, the police and now the banks.
	It seems to me, as a country dweller, that everything must be fetched and carried over ever-increasing distances these days. And it is not surprising that the talk among the young is of depopulation and even emigration. I only hope that the long-awaited rural White Paper referred to by a number of your Lordships provides an antidote to the Government's current complacency, for that is how it seems to the farming and rural community.
	The other major recruiting ground for that hospital, the Glan Clwyd Hospital which I mentioned earlier, were the coastal resorts of Rhyl and Colwyn Bay, with their dozens of small family businesses engaged in various aspects of the tourist trade. And tourism too is a very significant employer in the Welsh economy. It employs some 100,000 people. One in 10 of the working population are engaged in it.
	Its importance has been recognised by successive governments. The Wales Tourist Board was the first quango established in Wales. That was done by a Labour government in 1969. The board has achieved a great deal over the years, including the promotion of on-farm and rural tourism, often against the wishes of the traditional coastal resorts which saw their livelihood being sapped and taken away from them by rural enterprises.
	I am sorry to say that the board now appears to have lost favour with the Labour Government, who hold somewhat giddy sway at the National Assembly in Cardiff. Its budget has been frozen for three years. That has occasioned a quiverful of parthian shots from the retiring chairman, Mr Tony Lewis, perhaps better known to your Lordships as a former captain of the English Test cricket team in the early 1970s--so he has served both countries well.
	He has compared his standstill budget of £14.9 million with the Scottish Tourist Board's increased budget of £25 million this year and his marketing budget of £5 million with the Irish Republic's £30 million. I have a great deal of sympathy with the retiring chairman's somewhat plaintive tone at a time when Wales is yet again turning to the tourist industry to make up for jobs lost in the countryside. There is much to be said in support of his national action plan for the development of tourism as a counter to the diffusion and duplication and, indeed, dissipation of effort that one sometimes finds at local level.
	The trouble with tourism as a remedy for the ills of agriculture is that many farming families have already diversified into tourism projects of all kinds. A well-known tourism figure in west Wales, Mr Ashford Price, described only last week how he was being approached by farmers for advice as to how they might further diversify. He said that 10 years ago he would have encouraged them, but now the market is saturated. I for one hope that he is wrong. There is a lot of potential and scope for the development of projects, particularly in field sports.
	A strong pound adversely affects the domestic tourist trade, as it does agriculture, but there is no monetary compensation to be claimed on behalf of the tourist industry. I might tell the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that the fact that the Valleys and West Wales have been declared an objective 1 area is not likely to be particularly helpful in relation to tourism. I understand that tourism-related projects are to be given a comparatively low priority and will be in competition with other service and manufacturing applications for funds. Of the total £1.2 billion to be made available over a period of years, it is estimated that the tourist industry will receive only 2 per cent--about £3 million--although it accounts for 8 per cent of Welsh gross domestic product.
	I hope that the National Assembly, which apparently does not place tourism development high on its agenda, will give further consideration to the issue for the simple reason that tourism is likely to continue to be one of themainstays of the Welsh rural economy. I hope that the Assembly will have regard to the UK Government's guidance to the regional development agencies in England which have been strongly encouraged to co-operate in tourism development. I hope also that the Assembly will give urgent consideration to the suggestions put forward by the Welsh Rural Forum in its report Rural Wales 2000, published yesterday. There are some excellent ideas in the report.
	There is no doubt in my mind that we are facing an extremely serious situation in the rural areas. I fear that it may all get worse before it gets better. My only hope at present is that the Minister will have some positive things to say when he comes to end the debate.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, first I must declare an interest as president of the Southern Tourist Board and also as the owner of Beaulieu, one of the largest tourist attractions in rural England. As we enter the third millennium, it cannot be repeated enough that for some years tourism is and will be absolutely vital to the rural economy. It was not ever thus, as, from 1939, all efforts in agriculture were focused on growing more. Tourist related activities were thought to be invasive and were routinely discouraged. We now live in a different world. Agriculture is once again in crisis, and as a motoring historian I am reminded of the early part of the last century when the rural economy was entirely based on providing for the horse; be it hay, straw, blacksmiths, horse-drawn vehicles, vets, saddles and all the ramifications of hunting. Then came the car; prompting another crisis which not only revolutionised the agricultural economy, in particular altering agricultural practices, but also the look of the countryside.
	As townsmen began increasingly to explore the countryside, so new facilities were required and so they have developed over the years in a peripheral way to the main business of farming; a nice icing on the cake for the more enterprising farmer. Now we have a new agricultural revolution. Farmers are urged to grow less, set aside productive land, plant trees and diversify. For many farmers, the crops of today are people, not fodder for horses. They need to be well planted in attractive places, tended with care and well managed so that they do not damage the environment. That is, of course, a problem facing the whole country, not only rural areas.
	I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Wade, who mentioned places such as Bournemouth or Blackpool, where, if one is staying, one is bound to enjoy the New Forest or the Lake District. They are like reservoirs for additional tourists. It is rather unfortunate, however, that some resorts selfishly want to keep their visitors to themselves and they deliberately try not to publicise the surrounding areas, which are sometimes of equal or even greater interest than those seaside resorts. However, I should like to compliment Bournemouth, which has long recognised that its attraction includes its surroundings and has marketed itself accordingly with great success.
	Tourism affects the countryside in an all-pervasive way, not only through the obvious means such as coaches and caravan sites, but also through walkers, climbers, caravanners, fishermen, hunters and shooters, weekend sailors who go to rural coastal areas; in fact, everybody who wishes to leave the town for the country. The bulk of businesses that make up the rural economy and contribute to it are almost always small businesses, but by themselves they derive little benefit from the larger-scale campaigns of the national and regional tourist boards.
	The regional tourist boards must concentrate their efforts a great deal more on promoting the benefits and management of tourism on a much smaller scale, indeed right down to parish council level. Unfortunately, such councils are too often composed of persons with rather NIMBY attitudes, who inevitably oppose even small and sensible tourist developments and then wonder why their area and many market towns face a crisis with high street pubs, shops, post offices, garages, local bus services and even banks closing. Those losses to the rural community are often compounded by the competition from large out-of-town shopping complexes with Sunday shopping, which is a great problem for historic houses at the moment, and 24-hour opening times.
	There has been a great increase in farm diversification with such activities as "pick-your-own"--who would have thought before the war that one would be picking one's own sweetcorn? However, there is a danger of new farm-based attractions of small scale and poor quality damaging the existing market. There is much more scope to provide high quality B&Bs and self-catering accommodation, although planning restrictions, not forgetting the ever-increasing number of regulations coming from central government, can be a great obstacle.
	It is important to stress that the viability of most small businesses in rural areas depends greatly on the contribution of tourism, particularly in the area of employment. At Beaulieu 200 people are employed which shows what can be achieved.
	Many commercial premises are seasonal and are profitable only if they close in the winter. More permanent retail establishments, such as a chemist's shop, would only just about break even if it were not for the summer trade. The selling and processing of films, the selling of first aid items, sun lotions and so forth, can increase turnover by 30 per cent which will make a shop viable.
	I am convinced that tourist boards should follow the key theme of creating and marketing local distinctions of special and unique character, such as local customs, food, crafts and dialects, if only to counter the creeping sameness of so many of our high streets that are packed with McDonalds and Travelodges. Soon, when everywhere looks the same, there will be no reason to travel.
	Destination marketing on a small scale is difficult, but the enormous expansion of IT and, in particular, the Internet, provides great opportunities for targeting promotion more accurately. I am told that when the Orkney Islands recently advertised its B&Bs on the Internet, the accommodation was sold out within a few weeks.
	As MAFF is largely responsible for future rural economy and is now confronted with a bleak future for agriculture, I want to make a bold and rather radical suggestion. I believe that MAFF should seriously consider providing financial assistance and marketing advice to farms and other rural industries for tourist-related projects and developments. Surely, a farmer would find that advice more welcome than advice on how to grow more pigs.
	I look forward to the forthcoming rural White Paper. We shall have to wait and see, and hope that it is not too late.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, early in the morning of 1st April 2000, Radio 4 quoted the world tourist organisation that predicts that this year the United Kingdom will receive 28 million tourists and that by the year 2020 the number will have increased to 54 million. That is a huge number.
	In this well-timed debate, for which I thank my noble friend Lord Peel, we have heard what tourism is; what this country already has to offer to those who venture beyond London into our rural areas; and how the industry may be developed in the future.
	I declare my family interest in farming and membership of the Country Landowners' Association, the NFU and the Countryside Alliance.
	I want to talk briefly about the need to "manage" tourism, by which I do not mean loads of bureaucracy, the plethora of which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has referred to already. We have recognised systems of grading various levels of service; we have a national system of route signing; we have easy access to accurate maps at reasonable prices, and we have a network of information centres whose staff--as I can testify from a recent experience with the English Tourist Board--are helpful, well informed and swift to respond to requests for information.
	In that regard, I welcome the consultation document Working in the Countryside which will look, in the widest possible terms, at how tourism can be managed in the countryside. A balanced approach is absolutely crucial to any future policy. We must encourage tourism, but at the same time we must protect wildlife and their habitats.
	The popularity of tourism brings new challenges and new opportunities, but it also brings pressures, especially on some of our most visited rural beauty spots. Growing numbers of tourists and day trippers travel everywhere by car because it is cheaper than paying rail fares for two, three or four adults and it is the only way to reach some areas. When they reach their destination, the vehicle is often unnecessary to the rest of the visit and a nuisance both to them and to the residents of whichever town or village they visit.
	Many organisations, such as the Country Landowners' Association, the Local Government Association, the National Farmers Union, have warned of the difficulties of high levels of seasonal demand for water, for entry to historic buildings and for access to parkland and famous beauty spots. If such things have to be rationed in some way, they will lose their attraction and people will simply go elsewhere.
	I have quoted the figures of 28 million tourists this year and 54 million in 2020. For that same period, the increase of visitors to Europe will be even greater. It is not only in agriculture that we are likely to lose out to our continental neighbours. If we do not look to our laurels we shall see a continuation of the trend whereby more Britons abandon their own country to travel abroad and more overseas visitors confine their attention to London and the main attractions of the Lake District, Stratford-on-Avon, Scotland, and Snowdonia.
	Such a trend will not benefit the majority of our rural areas. The efforts of so many farmers and their wives in developing bed-and-breakfast facilities, to which other noble Lords have referred, in offering farm visits and holidays, and in housing craft centres will count for less. The need to encourage visitors to try the less well known areas is crucial. Transport is a key to that. Planning, mentioned by other noble Lords, needs to be dealt with in an imaginative and sympathetic way.
	Britain offers many contrasts in a small area: not for us the vast distances of America, Australia or parts of the Continent; not for us the seemingly unending vistas of prairie or mountain. Tourists, whether home-grown or from overseas, can opt for the height of luxury or for the backpack and the youth hostel. They can choose culture in the form of the world's finest theatres, art galleries and concert halls or they can climb, canoe, skydive or simply walk. They can relax for a week, two weeks or a long weekend. They can join activities as varied as painting, music making, snorkelling or sailing, to name but a few. We should be proud of the variety that this nation can afford.
	Our rural economy must take full advantage of the range of activities that tourists of all ages and backgrounds enjoy and for which they are prepared to pay. Walking, cycling and horse riding are as popular now as ever. Farmers and landowners can benefit by offering traffic-free access to beautiful landscapes and perhaps challenging terrain.
	Coming from Leicestershire, I can attest to the range of tourist attractions within the county. I shall mention a few because they highlight the problems and challenges that we face. On the sport side, there is motoring racing at Mallory Park and Donington Park; the canals give pleasure to walkers and boat enthusiasts; beautiful Bradgate Park and the Beacon Hill are free to walkers and soon, in some areas, to cyclists. The noble Earl is not in his seat today, but there is the Ferrers Centre for Arts and Crafts, which is a real tourist attraction. At the smaller end, there is the Stonehurst Family Farm and museum which was awarded the Leicester Mercury award for tourism only a year ago. There is also Twycross Zoo, the Birdland Centre with tropical birds, and fishing in our reservoirs.
	In addition, Leicestershire, as my noble friend Lord Kimball has said, is the home of five of the best known fox hound packs as well as the Oakley Beagles and the Westerby Bassets. Those seven hunts make a great contribution to the economic activity within and around the county through direct and indirect employment and in the purchase of goods and services. They attract people from all over the UK and visitors from abroad, which is very important. My noble friend gave the House the figures.
	Others enjoy riding for pleasure, as compared with for competing or hunting. Riders bring our farmers the opportunity to convert barns into stabling for riding centres, as some of my neighbouring farmers have done. Fishing and shooting, enjoyed by local and overseas visitors, play an important part in a county like Leicestershire.
	Shortly we shall debate the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill in this House. It will place extra burdens on our land managers, and if some of the more practical requirements that are proposed in the Bill are not understood, appreciated and met, it may well cause a reduction in landowners' ability to attract tourists to their land. I hope that the Minister will pass that comment on to his colleagues.
	Like other speakers in the debate, I have mentioned only a few of the many tourist attractions. Rural tourism depends on a thriving farming industry, a point made by several noble Lords. I refer to it every time I speak in the House. Farming is still in crisis across the whole range of food production. As others have said, the situation is not being helped by increased regulation, the early introduction of EU legislation, or the continuing pressure on our small abattoirs. All these factors are adding to the demise of agriculture.
	Fortunately, tourists who come to visit the countryside seem to be permanently hungry. They are happy to enjoy the home-made fare on offer in our shops, tea shops, farm centres and pubs. Our locally grown and regionally known hams, cheeses, preservatives and sweets are enjoyed by everyone. This is a business activity which attracts young people. I was happy to note that recently two such young Nottinghamshire farmers who have branched out have won awards: one for a wholesale and retail ice cream business set up at her home; the other for turning his farm into a visitor centre using everyday animals, but also including some exotic species.
	I was also pleased to learn of a campaign to tempt culinary tourists on a rural ride. Some £50,000 has been given to the Heart of England Tourist Board to pilot such holidays. The initiative brings together farmers, food producers and the tourist industry to produce a top quality package based on farms as well as hotels and restaurants.
	Farmers are willing to adapt, to accept new challenges and to look at ways of encouraging tourism. However, I should reflect the views of other noble Lords and say that a saturation point can be reached beyond which it is not possible to keep on diversifying. I welcome the announcement made on 31st March that the Government will apply a zero business rate for horse projects on farms. Perhaps some relaxation of rules or pump priming for other types of farm projects might be considered. That would provide the stimulus that will persuade the agricultural community to diversify even further. In doing so, they will not only sustain agriculture and the production of food, they will also attract more tourism to rural areas.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Peel for introducing this timely debate and I congratulate him on his excellent speech. However, I should like to mention one minor peccadillo: my noble friend mentioned the strength of the pound, but no doubt that must have been a slip of the tongue. We are talking about the weakness of the euro here.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The last time I spoke on this issue, I did refer to the weakness of the euro.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment. He was absolutely right to point out the extraordinary blindspot in nearly all official and quasi-official publications--many of them have been mentioned in the course of the debate--on rural tourism and the rural economy. Perhaps--as a result of the intervention and kind words from my noble friend Lord Kimball--I should declare my interests at this point. I am chairman of St Martin's Magazines, the publishers of Country Illustrated. I am also president of the Heart of England Tourist Board.
	The blindspot identified so clearly by my noble friend Lord Peel is the significant contribution made to the rural economy by what I shall call "sporting tourists". I do not understand this pervading reluctance to admit to the blindingly obvious. In a sense I recognise the reaction as akin to that of the Victorians. Apparently, they were nervous of the sight of the female form, in particular legs, which were covered at all times by long skirts. As I understand it, they even went to the lengths of putting lace around piano legs so that no offence could be caused. Nevertheless, the legs were still there, only out of sight and out of mind. That appears to be the case today as regards field sports.
	I have one or two of those official documents with me. They have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. We can search in vain for even a fleeting mention of hunting, shooting, fishing or riding. The first, referred to also by my noble friend Lord Peel, is entitled Rural Tourism: Working for the Countryside, while the second is entitled Sharing the Nation's Prosperity, and is a rather weighty document. It is full of marvellously flatulent jargon such as "sustainable development", "market segmentation", "inclusion", "exclusion", "integration", "the enterprise environment" and I believe, for my bonus point, that I found one reference to the word "overarching". It is full of little goodies such as a paragraph explaining that 29 per cent of men living in rural areas have been observed to drink more than 21 units of alcohol per week. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, might be interested to know that that probably includes even areas such as Cheshire.
	Another document reports a survey conducted to see whether rural people are friendly. According to its findings, 40 per cent are very friendly and 40 per cent are fairly friendly; in urban areas, 60 per cent are fairly friendly. I do not understand the survey. Is it suggesting that there are many "fairly friendly" in urban areas but rather fewer in rural areas?
	However, the documents do not mention field sports or riding, which I find rather odd. It seems a little careless, in particular after hearing the impressive figures given by my noble friends Lord Peel and Lord Kimball which reflect the serious financial contribution made by field sports to the rural economy. Of course, sporting tourists have been with us for many years. Some noble Lords may be familiar with the works of Robert Surtees, in particular his novel, Mr Sponge's Sporting Tour. Mr Sponge was reputed to live on,
	"nothing a year, paid quarterly".
	As many noble Lords have pointed out, sporting tourists contribute a huge amount to the rural economy, whether they shoot, hunt, fish or ride. However, they will come only if appropriate services are available in an area which offers them the opportunity to pursue their interests.
	I should like to move from the general to the particular, because it might be of interest to noble Lords to learn how in real life one such enterprise works. Close to me on the borders of Warwickshire and Gloucestershire there is an enterprise that offers hunting, pony trekking and riding lessons. It has 55 horses in work and 40 young horses coming on--95 horses in all. It sends out around 15 to 20 horses each hunting day during the season, which over the entire season amounts to around 300 horses. It takes more than 2,500 visitors on pony treks or rides and more than 2,000 people attend its riding school each year. The business has a turnover well into six figures and attracts visitors from America, France, Holland, Italy, Germany and Japan. However, those are only the foreign tourists; a great number of British tourists visit for a few days' hunting or a week's riding course or pony trekking in the Cotswolds.
	The business is thriving because of the hard graft of its owners. Their success has absolutely nothing at all to do with Euro-dosh such as Objective 1 or 2, the Leader schemes, or one or other of the multifarious little Euro-enterprises which only give us our own money back again once it has been administered by Eurocrats. The owners' success is due to their own enterprise and hard work. Furthermore, their success generates other successes in the rural economy. Their stables employ six people full time and 11 part time. In particular, some of those part-timers are farmers' wives, whose income gives them an opportunity to contribute to their farm economies and to help towards the survival of their own farm businesses in the current harsh times for agriculture. If that is not contributing to the rural local economy, I do not know what is.
	The organisation uses two professional saddlers to maintain riding equipment and three independent saddlery stores. Its general supplies--there are a lot of those, as can be imagined with keeping 90 horses--are bought from a local farmers' co-operative. It uses four local veterinary practices and gives regular work to three blacksmiths. Its vehicles are maintained by the local garage and fuelled at the local petrol stations. Let us not forget the feed requirements. With 90 horses, the business needs hay, straw and oats, which are all bought from local farmers and, I am told with a catch in the voice, at premium prices.
	So we have this picture emerging of a successful hub of energy with spokes radiating out all over the rural economy. But the picture is not nearly complete. There is the pub; there are the local B&Bs; the builders; the repairmen; the plumbers; and all the people who are needed to keep such a large complex going and who have to be virtually on-call all the time.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Kimball that this is not the time to have a debate on hunting, despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, brought it into the equation. But it is worth saying that hunting plays an important part in the success of that business. That is a fact; it is not making any specific point. A lot of its other activities are seasonal: the riding school and lessons are seasonal. Hunting takes place during the five months of the year when there is not nearly so much activity on the riding and trekking side.
	So the business is dependent on the continuation of hunting, as are the local pubs and the bed-and-breakfast suppliers. I have personal experience of that when taking my 19 units a week. They all say that they would find it difficult to keep going without the clientele they get from that business; in this area not so much from hunting, but from that business. To keep costs down, they need a large turnover, and profits on all enterprises are at the margins. So they need a year-round turnover before they make a profit.
	That is just one example, but it is an important example in my part of the country and I am sure that there are scores of such examples throughout the whole of the United Kingdom that contribute that sort of measure of success to the local economy. I find it a little depressing, as I am sure do the owners of that business and those who run similar businesses, that they are not mentioned; that they are wiped out of the national consciousness when it comes to talking about the local economy. We hear all sorts of other comments, but nothing about the people who offer sporting holidays, even if it includes shooting, hunting and fishing. They are simply not mentioned.
	I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity in this debate to put the record straight. I am not attacking the Government. These are not government documents. But it would be nice to hear somebody say, "Yes, we recognise that field sports--riding, hunting, fishing and shooting--have a part to play in the rural economy", and perhaps the Minister might say that at the end of this debate.

The Earl of Longford: My Lords, can I ask the noble Lord a question? What is wrong with drag hunting? Do we not get the best of all worlds with that?

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, as I said, this is not the time to go into a debate about hunting. If the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would like to join me for a drink afterwards, I will explain to him the difference between drag hunting and fox hunting.

The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I too join the ever-increasing band of noble Lords congratulating my noble friend Lord Peel on bringing forward this extraordinarily important debate. As we have heard from so many noble Lords, the importance of tourism to the rural economy is enormous. It is all the more important at the present time when rural Britain is in a state of agricultural crisis and transition.
	But I join the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in saying how distressing and worrying it is that there are so few noble Lords on the Government Benches this evening for such an important debate. I hope that the Government Benches will be fuller when we consider the countryside Bill in this Chamber. On the other hand, it may be a good thing if they are not and we can get our amendments through without too much hassle or worry.
	As we all know, the Prime Minister has urged farmers to diversify, and many are endeavouring to do so. But the Prime Minister is saying nothing new. Many rural activities form an historic part of the rural way of life. They are a source of what one might term domestic tourism as well as international tourism. The debate this evening enables us to look at tourism in its widest context and face up to some facts that many people and public bodies seem reluctant to publicise.
	I should like to confine my remarks to the area I know best; that is, the West Country, where I live. It is one of the most beautiful, varied and most frequently visited parts of Britain. Our landscape, our villages, our houses and gardens, particularly those in Devon and Cornwall, are spectacular. Indeed, they are almost certainly the best in Europe at this particular time of year, the spring. And the tourism they generate is essential to the many rural communities that exist there.
	In addition, we have high quality capital projects on the way; for example, the Eden Project. That is one of the flagship millennium projects and is attracting huge interest from around the world. Through the use of one-and-a-half kilometres of plastic domes 135 feet high, it will show how plants shape our everyday life. That is extraordinary. Indeed, the project is expected to attract 750,000 visitors each year.
	The West Country is an area rich in heritage and tradition. Visitors are able to partake of an astonishing array of activities. But it is also an area of high economic sensitivity. Many of the more remote villages are what might be termed marginal in economic terms, and in maintaining that economic balance in favour of the local community tourism plays a vital part. As such, we must do all we can to encourage tourism while being sensitive to the countryside, its needs and its people.
	Tourism increasingly demands quality. More and more people expect and can afford quality. Yes, they expect it; and, yes, they respect it. I refer to quality of accommodation; quality of service and food at competitive prices. But quality needs not only the resources to fund it, but also an attitude of mind and an understanding of what people want. A pride and satisfaction goes with the delivery of a high quality service, and ultimately the gain from it--the profit.
	But many public bodies, even those charged with promoting and planning the future of rural Britain, fail to acknowledge the crucial role played by country activities such as hunting, shooting and fishing. One cannot help but suspect that that reticence is dictated by political correctness and not by a genuine understanding of the economic, cultural and management realities of local communities such as those of the West Country. If that is the case, then those responsible are doing a gross disservice to those communities and undermining the very work that they were set up to achieve. In doing so, they are playing recklessly with people's lives and future, and indeed the future of the countryside which we all cherish and value so highly.
	In the West Country in particular, country sports are as important as any other rural activity and contribute hugely to the rural economy. Those activities attract large numbers of visitors from within Britain and overseas. What must be understood, as many noble Lords have said, is that for many communities they make the difference between survival and extinction. For instance, shooting attracts a considerable number of international clients who contribute substantially not only to local employment during the winter months but also to spending in the local economy.
	Noble Lords may think I exaggerate the case for country sports, but some facts should serve to illustrate my point. The Rural Economy Working Group of the West Somerset District Council commissioned a report from the Centre for Rural Studies at Cirencester. It produced some very revealing figures. In looking at hunting, the study discovered that hunting brings in £5.5 million to the rural economy in the West Country, while the estimated value of sold shooting on Exmoor alone is £7.25 million. Add on feedstuffs and, in total, Endangered Exmoor has shown that country sports directly contribute £13½ million per annum to the rural economy and, even more important, against a background of a 70 per cent drop in farming incomes in the last two years. Let us not forget also the very considerable employment that field sports give on Exmoor.
	One cannot but feel that if some other authorities and public bodies were to take their heads out of the proverbial sand, then the real importance of country sports to large parts of rural Britain might be realised. This should be an area of objective fact, not sentiment.
	In addition to country sports, however, there is for instance the very exciting South-West Forest Project between Dartmoor, Exmoor and Bodmin Moor, which will create an area for the enjoyment of all and enable numerous country pursuits from walking to rally driving to be enjoyed, thereby providing valuable business opportunities and jobs in some of the most sparsely populated and vulnerable areas of the country.
	Equally important is investment and government support for the hotel sector in rural areas. We have in the West Country an ageing hotel sector, which in many areas is struggling to remain in business. The stock is old; it is dated and tired; major investment is needed to upgrade some of the stock.
	I realise that many of your Lordships may be thinking, "Why should government money be invested in tourism, let alone tourism in rural England?". My Lords, you may be interested to learn that tourism in the South West generates about £1,200 per head of population and in some parts it accounts for over one-third of GDP; but the central government support for tourism is about 20p per head of population--yes, 20p. That 20p per head of population in England compares with £6.49 in Wales and £5.07 in Scotland. If England were to have the same funding for tourism as Scotland and Wales, major product improvement could be made and new products developed and marketed. That would help this vital industry to help the rural economy to flourish once more. All the research shows that there is considerable potential to grow this sector. What is needed is public sector pump-priming funding.
	Finally, my Lords, if any of us is in any doubt, let us remember that tourism is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the world. Within the next few years it will be the largest industry in the world. It already constitutes the world's largest employment sector and one in six of all new jobs in the country is in tourism. We need to give our tourism industry the support it deserves, which will deliver the revenue, the business opportunities and the jobs so badly needed in rural England, particularly in the West Country.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Peel for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important subject this evening. It is a particularly interesting subject because it links the tourism industry, which is an enormous and growing industry and one of our country's great success stories, with the rural economy, whose main and oldest industry, agriculture, is probably in the worst state it has ever been in, certainly in my lifetime.
	In his recent day-trip to the countryside to persuade farmers that this Government have any interest at all in their problems, the Prime Minister, as one of his solutions to the terrifying collapse in farm incomes, gave advice that farmers should diversify into businesses apart from farming. It is perfectly clear from this debate that one of the options open to them is to diversify into tourism. It is equally clear that, while it may be an option for some, it is not an option for all and it is by no means an easy option.
	King Charles II once said that a man could usefully be employed outdoors on more days of the year in England than in any other country--although quite what Charles II knew about outdoor employment, I am not entirely sure. Ignoring the fact that the weather this week has not been quite as spring-like as we might wish, I suspect that I might achieve some degree of consensus in your Lordships' House this evening if I were to suggest that many overseas visitors do not come to Britain for their holidays in order to sunbathe or to swim off our coasts; though I do accept that many of our natives bravely flock to our coasts each summer.
	One of the main attractions of Britain for our American, Japanese and European guests is what has come to be called our heritage. Although it is clear that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland thinks very little of military ceremonies, the tens of thousands of tourists who flock to see the changing of the Guard, the Trooping of the Colour and the Edinburgh Tattoo would seem not to agree with him.
	Furthermore, although this Government have shown scant regard for the past and its traditions and values, it is the past glories of this country, conserved here as nowhere else in the world, that form one of the main attractions for the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of visitors who come here each year. The Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Eton--how New Labour must hate that!--Oxford, Stratford and Bath are among the favourite attractions; but they are not the only ones. The stately homes of England, from Chatsworth to Blenheim and from Berkeley Castle to Blair Atholl, teem with visitors in the summer, marvelling at their beauty, at their contents, and at the wonderful countryside in which they are set.
	It is not just the great houses and estates that attract people, however; it is the British countryside that is the wonder of so many visitors to these shores, and the villages and farms that are scattered across it. Part of that attraction comes from the natural landscape; but no less of the magic comes from the fact that it is a living countryside, worked and cared for by those who farm and manage it. It is also important to remember that many of those areas which attract the most visitors are those which have been hardest hit by the current agricultural depression: Exmoor and Dartmoor, the Peak District, the dales and the moors of North Yorkshire, which my noble friend Lord Peel knows better than anyone; Snowdonia, preserved and protected for so long by that great Master of Hounds, Richard Williams, and his family, and now managed by the National Trust; the Lake District--John Peel country; the Highlands and islands of Scotland.
	When the Edinburgh Festival and the Tattoo are over, thousands of visitors stream north into the Highlands, many to walk the mountains and moors; although how many recognise that the magnificent countryside which they are enjoying is the result of years of committed management of grouse moor, deer forest and salmon river, I have no idea.
	There is clearly enormous potential, therefore, for further development of these great tourist assets, to enable them to be enjoyed by visitors from overseas and by holidaymakers from other parts of our own country. We need to recognise, however, that in order for this to be achieved some facts must be recognised and some problems overcome.
	First and foremost, neither the visitors to our countryside nor those who live there want to see the countryside turned into a massive theme park. That would destroy the attraction both to visit and to live there. It is a cry we have heard again and again over the last few years; it is a very real concern and must be carefully considered. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in replying, will recognise and understand this point, as he has often demonstrated to the House his grasp of complex issues of style--for an issue of style is what this is.
	The most important factor in achieving the right balance--and we have heard a lot about balance this evening--is that, in developing tourism in the countryside, account must be taken of the very different reasons why people visit. When I started speaking, I purposely mentioned the weather and the fact that it is not the prime motivating factor in choosing to go to some of Britain's wild areas, such as Scotland, the moors or the West Country. That is even truer in the colder months of the year. We therefore need a tourist industry which, if possible, offers attractions all the year round.
	Whether or not it is politically correct, one of the main attractions of the British countryside is that, because it has been so well conserved, it is immensely appealing to field sportsmen. To sportsmen and women all over the world, Britain is a field sports Mecca. Thousands come here every winter to hunt, to shoot and to fish. The income they bring is essential to the communities they visit, because those are the most difficult and the most fragile communities. That income sustains them through the winter months when farm incomes are low and when the fair-weather tourists return to their cities. It is the focus of this not vast amount of income--but income in particular places at particular times--that is so important. This part of the rural tourist industry is essential to the survival of the whole and must not be underestimated.
	One specific example of what can go wrong can be seen in Scotland; and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Kimball touched on it. The catastrophic fall in salmon numbers in Scotland in recent years had led to a corresponding fall in the number of visitors. No salmon equals no fishermen, and this has caused immense damage to that part of the tourist industry, which, in some parts of Scotland, is leading to hotel closures and job losses. Between 1991 and 1995 the decline in expenditure on fishing by tourists to Scotland was over 20 per cent, but it still managed to account for over £28 million of annual expenditure in those areas. Although I am not clear about this, I suppose that responsibility for tourism in Scotland now lies with the Edinburgh parliament, but one of the most significant causes--and my noble friend Lord Kimball will correct me if I am wrong--in the decline of the salmon is the continued activities of the north-east coast driftnet fishing, which operates under Westminster's jurisdiction. I am not confident that this will be addressed in time, although it has been raised in your Lordships' House four, if not five, times in the past few years.
	Another example along similar lines is the unnecessary bureaucratic arrangements that we now have for visitors from abroad when they come to shoot in this country and bring their guns. We all recognise the importance of gun controls. It is now widely recognised that the present measures place silly burdens on law-abiding sportsmen and women, while doing little to hamper real criminals. I do not believe--again, I shall be corrected if I am wrong--that I have ever heard of a case of a visiting sporting shooter committing a crime involving a gun in this country. It is time the Government recognised that shooting is an important part of the rural tourist industry which, like fishing, brings income to the most depressed parts of rural Britain and to the community that lives there, and does so in the months when income is lowest. It also contributes disproportionately to the maintenance of the landscape, which is such a key attraction to other visitors.
	Field sports, too, are at the centre of many special events that take place throughout the country every year. Where I live, on the edge of the Cotswolds--the other end from my noble friend Lord Plumb--we have, as noble Lords can imagine, quite a few visitors who come to see our beautiful countryside. At present, almost on my doorstep, we are gearing up for the Badminton Horse Trials at the beginning of May. Over the course of the trials, over 250,000 visitors will make it the largest outdoor sporting event in Europe. During that time, many of the local businesses take more money in one week than in the rest of the year. That one week is essential to their survival. Every pub, hotel and bed-and-breakfast will be full to bursting point. I wonder how many visitors know that that event is only possible to stage because the hunting infrastructure at Badminton in terms of stabling and management of the landscape provides the facilities to run such an event. I also wonder how many people who have never been there realise that the biggest cheer that the crowd gives is when the hounds parade in the ring at the climax of the three days.
	This is only one of many such events throughout the country--for example, the Game Fair and the many agricultural and county shows, like the Great Yorkshire Show, the East of England Show and the Bath and West Show. These are enormous crowd pullers from the towns into the countryside and are of immense economic significance. I shall give your Lordships only two statistics. They are both from Wales, which is not, in some cases, the centre of our rural tourist industry. However, both these things are reliant on field sports. The first is the Welsh Game Fair, which attracts 60,000 visitors a year and, the second, just down the road, is the Welsh Hawking Centre in the Vale of Glamorgan, which attracts 65,000 visitors throughout the year. Many of these visitors travel considerable distances to attend and provide ample evidence of the potential for rural tourism.
	We are reaching the end of the debate. It will be clear to the whole House that tourism in the countryside is an important rural industry and that it has potential for growth and development if encouraged in a sensitive and thoughtful way. Moreover, it has the potential to generate vital income for hard-pressed farmers in some of the most depressed areas. But, more significant than that, I hope the Government realise that one of the most important aspects of rural tourism lies in the unique field sports that we have to offer in this country. They are not unique in the sense that no other countries have hunting, shooting or fishing, because they all do; they are unique in the sense that it is recognised across the world that the quality of the sport that we provide in Britain is greater than anywhere else.
	Therefore, I hope that the Government will take a leaf out of what is perhaps a strange book; namely, the book of conservation in Africa, where it is increasingly recognised that the sportsman's dollar is the key to conservation and a burgeoning tourist industry; and that governments have a responsibility to help in developing this side of tourism rather than hampering it. Too many fragile rural communities depend upon the income generated in part by their field sports tourists to allow spurious ideological debates to threaten their livelihoods and ways of life.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for bringing the debate to the House this afternoon; and, indeed, for his excellent introduction, which focused particularly on the need for professionalism in the industry. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us some indication as to how the Government believe the small business service and RDAs will give guidance and help to the tourism industry at the sort of level that is needed.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, mentioned market towns in particular and produce marketing, which are both areas of great importance. The regeneration of market towns encompasses that holistic approach which many noble Lords agreed this afternoon is particularly important. The noble Earl also mentioned the "loved to death" honeypot areas. There is some best practice which needs to be more widely disseminated as regards how to deal with the pressure that especially beautiful landscapes bring.
	I am glad that we have a Treasury Minister to answer our debate. I know that some noble Lords may perhaps be of a different opinion. But too often we have had debates about the rural economy and have been told in response, "Well, that's a matter for the Treasury". Therefore, it is a nice change to have a Minister with Treasury responsibilities on the Government Front Bench.
	Both the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, mentioned trains and their importance to the rural infrastructure. I found the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, about information on trains most interesting. Indeed, the French have huge signs alongside their motorways encouraging people to turn off the motorway, so there is no reason why that idea could not be more sustainably applied to trains. However, I was much less keen on the noble Lord's idea of a myriad of Portmeirions dotted around the countryside--lovely though that one example may be.
	My noble friend Lord Phillips made some telling points about the importance of difference and diversity; indeed, that is actually what tourists who come to Britain are particularly looking for. My noble friend also touched on the "agencyitis" that is still inflicting small businesses and people who are trying to apply for grants. It was about this time last year that I introduced a debate in your Lordships' House on how we would be able to deal with the huge number of agencies that were being established. My noble friend told us this afternoon about the cultural consortium, which is in addition to the RDAs, government offices and the Countryside Agency.
	There is still confusion among small organisations and businesses as to where best to go for help with starting businesses and obtaining grants. The Government need to give more thought to this, although the Minister will probably say that this matter will be addressed in the White Paper. However, as has already been mentioned, the White Paper has been put back twice to my knowledge. Indeed, it is now due in the autumn; but if we are not careful we shall find ourselves on the other side of an election.
	Several noble Lords mentioned the importance of cheese. I am especially pleased to be able to conclude and bat for Somerset in the way of Cheddar, just to balance the Cheshire and Leicestershire cheeses that were mentioned.
	I should like to refer to the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, with cormorants. I do not make light of it, but I am reminded of the imaginative use that the Chinese have made of birds that like to fish avidly. They have turned them into a tourist attraction by making them fish for the amusement of tourists. I am not sure how that works out in welfare terms, but that is what came into my mind when the noble Lord was speaking.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was quite right to draw attention to costs to landowners in the countryside Bill. I am sure that that is something which we shall discuss at length in your Lordships' House.
	Tourism offers a way of linking what we value in rural areas to the willingness of the public to pay for it. I am not just talking about those who spend their money in rural areas; we need to show urban visitors what is achieved in the countryside and what it can offer. They may subsequently be more willing to see it funded out of the public purse.
	Several noble Lords have said that tourism offers no solution to the agricultural crisis. It may be tempting to think that all farmers can run B&Bs and riding schools and therefore the agricultural crisis will go away. However, I believe that farmers are beginning to feel insulted at the continued suggestion that diversification will be the answer to all their problems.
	Tourism, just like farming, is faced with the strong pound; in fact, it is a "double whammy" for rural areas. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, as regards the strong pound and the weak euro. The strong pound dissuades people in Britain from visiting our rural areas in that they are more likely to go abroad. A weak euro is, of course, irrelevant to Americans or those from the Far East. Nevertheless, tourism is increasingly viewed as being crucial, even in areas which have less of a tourism tradition. Short-stay breaks, weekends and out of season visiting must be encouraged; we cannot depend on a period of 10 weeks in a year.
	I have listened to what has been said about hunting, shooting and fishing. Whatever our personal views on these issues, there is no doubt that the consideration of this matter by the Burns committee was long overdue. I understand that the evidence indicates that the contribution of field sports to the economy of rural areas is undeniable; and that my part of the world, Exmoor, was considered in this connection. Difficult ideological decisions will have to be made on this matter. However, as I say, the contribution of field sports to the economy of rural areas is undeniable.
	I declare an interest as a councillor on Somerset County Council. Somerset is perhaps not one of the biggest tourist destinations. Many--perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Arran, feels this way--may regard it as a service station on the way to Devon and Cornwall. Nevertheless, Somerset's annual tourist expenditure is about £385 million. We place great importance on extending the tourist season. All the local authorities in Somerset together produce a graphic and simple to use document, Somerset--The Facts, for tourist businesses. It is important in providing businesses with facts and some indication of the way in which they may choose to develop.
	The fact that the county and district councils produce this document is particularly relevant as regards the way in which central government view the funding of local government. Local authorities are the prime movers in their areas in developing tourism and the local economy. However, central government fund those aspects of local government in the "other services" category as if they were less important. Local government focus on their own priorities for areas and they are hard pushed to find the money to fund tourism and economic development.
	I hope that the Minister will comment on the funding of infrastructure in rural areas. I refer to trains in this connection. For some time we in the West Country have awaited the Government's response on the Eurostar connection. I believe that I first raised this matter in 1998. I am still not aware of any response. We are served by two London train lines and the A303, but Eurostar provision is essential to bring visitors from the Continent.
	There is also the matter of the Government's role in Internet provision. In recent months the importance of the Internet has been emphasised in every way. It will be important to rural areas and to tourism businesses in terms of advertising on the web, booking through the web and asking questions about where to visit. Rural areas and rural businesses will lose out unless the Government resolve the following problem; namely, that unless you live within two-and-a-half miles of a telephone exchange, you can access only a very slow version of the Internet.
	An article in the Financial Times last week stated that the Swedish Government are committed to building broad-band networks to reach every Swedish household within two years. The Swedish Government have committed funding to this project because they feared that the rural and northern areas of Sweden would be left out of the IT boom. I fear that rural areas in Britain may develop second-class economies because they do not have the necessary infrastructure to take advantage of our fastest growing method of accessing information.
	The Government need to evaluate more precisely the role of the big attractions which receive lottery funding. We have heard about the Eden project, for example. However, we need to know to what extent the benefits are spread around and what strain that puts on the infrastructure. Tourism is not a stand-alone industry. This debate has been useful in highlighting the way in which tourism ties in with many other matters.
	The document, Working Together--Communities, Conservation and Rural Economies, published last November by the RSPB, the Countryside Agency and Cheltenham and Gloucester College, examines why 10 European initiatives on rural development are successful. They are successful because they link economic, social and environmental aspects and they make clear which element is important in the various projects. Four of the projects were situated in England. It is one of the best documents that I have come across in terms of explaining the importance of combining those elements. I thoroughly recommend it to those noble Lords who are interested in that subject.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I join those who have thanked my noble friend Lord Peel for giving us the opportunity to debate a subject on which so many of my noble friends have expert knowledge.
	All noble Lords who have spoken today have expressed pride in, and have spoken knowledgeably about, the tourism projects in their areas. We have travelled from Cheshire to the wilds of Scotland and the south-west. We have had a geographical tour of tourist delights in our isles.
	As other noble Lords have remarked, this is a timely debate. Last month the English Tourism Council and the Countryside Agency published a consultation document, Rural Tourism: Working for the Countryside. In the same month the Conservative Party published its tourism strategy, Tourism Today, which addresses the issue of tourism in rural areas.
	Noble Lords are right to say that it is important to ensure that rural areas receive their fair share of tourism spending, but that it is vital that we should not neglect the other traditional areas of the rural economy. Nor, of course, should we promote tourism in such a way that it damages the very countryside that attracts tourists in the first place. My noble friend Lady Byford pointed out how important it is to maintain a balanced approach to development.
	Many noble Lords have, rightly, put the debate in the wider context of the widespread agricultural crisis. My noble friends Lord Plumb and Lord Monro of Langholm pointed to the concern that the very fabric of our rural society is in danger of disintegrating. What can tourism do to alleviate such a crisis? Tourism has, of course, always been a key sector and, as we have heard today, its importance is likely to grow. Farmers should have the opportunity to diversify into tourism related businesses. My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu was right to point out that it is important always to bear in mind that the diversification should involve new quality businesses not only to attract tourists in the first place but also to ensure that they return.
	Other speakers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft, have pointed out that it is not always possible for farmers to diversify. In some areas this is not an economic possibility, particularly where there is minimal infrastructure and where access is difficult. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy pointed out that we should recognise that many farmers have already diversified into tourism, with maximum effect; sometimes almost to saturation level. For them it is not a new phenomenon.
	Indeed, as we have heard, tourism often has a disproportionate significance to our rural areas. In Cornwall, expenditure by visitors represents more than 20 per cent of its GDP. In the south-west as a whole, landscapes support 43 per cent of all tourist-related jobs. I was very interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Arran said with regard to the impact of country sports upon the area. I declare an interest in that I spend my summer holidays in the south-west. I shall certainly look more carefully at the impact of country sports on Exmoor and on the spending there. My noble friend was right also to refer to the importance in the south-west of investment in the upgrading of hotel stock.
	Throughout today, my noble friends have been right to emphasise the vital role played in the rural economy by those who manage the estates and market the country sports. Several of my noble friends made powerful cases. I recall the arguments put forward by my noble friends Lord Kimball, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Mancroft. They spoke eloquently of the importance of that sector of the industry to our rural economy.
	I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton said in regard to in-coming tourism and its impact on the Highlands. I recall an occasion when I was staying in a highland hotel and found myself woken at 5 o'clock every morning by a horde of Italians. Before my noble friends get too worried, I should say that the Italians were on the other side of my hotel door, but at 5 a.m. every morning they went off to do their shooting. They brought absolutely vital income to that area of the Highlands.
	Agriculture and countryside management are of key importance to tourism, as well as being important for environmental and heritage conservation, as my noble friends have pointed out.
	But, as we have heard, there are many obstacles that face those who want to and try hard to diversify into tourism in rural areas, especially the obstacle of over-regulation--the dirigiste culture mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. My noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton referred to issues of planning. I was intrigued by the questions he asked about statutory responsibilities with regard to the need to consider environmental issues but not economic issues. I look forward to the Minister's response in relation to that matter.
	In particular, farmers who want to diversify into becoming attractions find that it is difficult to persuade local councils to agree to redundant farm buildings being turned, perhaps, into parts of the farm attraction--whether it is a tea room or a place where animals can be kept for visitors to see. What steps are the Government taking to remedy that problem?
	All those involved in agriculture and who want to diversify have to cope with an increasing burden of legislation and regulation. Farmers are used to regulations--my goodness they are--but when they want to diversify they find a whole new set of environmental, health and health and safety regulations that they need to pore over late into the night.
	I read an article in the National Farm Attractions Network which pointed out how many extra problems have been added to the list--certainly they are problems which never occurred to me. It referred me to a new publication which was issued last month by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That sets out the Secretary of State's standards of modern zoo practice. One might wonder what on earth that has to do with a farmer setting up a farm attraction. Most people think of a zoo as somewhere to see exotics such as giraffes or lions, but the actual definition is far wider.
	For example, if I am a farmer and I run a family attraction centre and, along with my sheep and my cattle, I display an animal such as a dormouse or an owl--hey presto, my farm becomes a zoo which is subject to the new standards of zoo practice to which I have referred. There is a real fear among farmers that their farm attractions will have to close because of the imposition of these new standards. Noble Lords have referred to bureaucracy and extra rules in passing, but this is an enormous document. It seems that these rules are written and framed with a traditional zoo in mind; they are simply not appropriate for the farm attractions that they also cover, whether it be farms visited by children in the south-west, which have a very high reputation, or a farm being set up for the first time as a farm attraction in the heart of England, where my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke is president of the regional tourism board.
	Farm attractions are not seeking to evade good management and proper health and safety measures--they are already subject to many inspections. They want standards imposed which are more suited to their size and to the nature of their operation. Why have not the Government published standards specifically tailored for farm attractions rather than for zoos such as London Zoo? Will they undertake to do so?
	I recognise that the Minister carries many spokemanships in his brief; as far as I am aware, that of the DETR is not one of them. But today he is responding on behalf of the whole Government and I therefore gave prior notice to his office that I would be asking questions about these regulations, or "standards" as I believe they are officially called.
	We have also heard of other problems. In particular, my noble friend Lord Plumb referred to the issue of transport and the fact that the future success of rural tourism depends on good transport links. But, as he remarked, the Government's integrated transport policy is in a mess. Any money that they put into rural transport seems to be more than cancelled out by the huge amounts taken out of rural areas by their stealth taxes on the motorist.
	We have heard of how quick the Government have been to tell farmers and growers that they should diversify to find their salvation. The Government seem slow to recognise how difficult that can be, especially in the middle of an agricultural recession when it is so hard to attract investment to start up new commercial businesses in areas that appear at present to be failing.
	Overall, there is considerable potential in some areas for wise and sensitive growth, but not in all. All of us have a duty to ensure that tourism plays its full role as a force for good, working for the countryside in its development in the rural economy. It is important to realise that tourism can never be seen as a panacea for the ills of the countryside. It is vital that we retain a healthy balance between agriculture, tourism and the rest of the rural economy.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl, Lord Peel, is to be congratulated not only on the way in which he introduced the debate but on the unanimity he has engendered among all speakers. I think that every single speaker has been seized of the importance of tourism to the rural economy, and the Government do not dissent from that. There may have been differences of emphasis--an objective observer from outside may think that perhaps the emphasis on field sports and on cheese went a little further than may be accepted by other people concerned with different kinds of tourism--but, with that very mild caveat, the noble Earl has achieved something quite significant.
	The Government certainly agree that tourism is a key driver of the rural economy in many areas of England. We estimate that tourism in the countryside is worth approximately £9 billion a year, including £500 million spent by overseas visitors. The total amount of employment supported either directly or indirectly by visitor activity in rural England was, some five years ago, estimated to be 380,000 jobs, and it is almost certainly more than that now.
	The industry has significant potential for diversifying the economy of the countryside--not only through agriculture but in many other ways--and for assisting in the socio-economic development of rural communities. Indeed, as many noble Lords said, the spending power of tourists in rural areas is the difference between viability and business failure in many local services which do not appear on the face of it to be as dependent on tourism as they are. Many excellent examples of that were given, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke.
	Many speakers, starting with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and ending with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said that tourism is not a panacea for deep-rooted rural problems. But it is a vital element in a thriving rural economy. Again, as many noble Lords said, if it is managed badly, it can damage the environment; but properly managed, it has the potential to benefit us all. It can have a positive impact on the environment and on the host community. The key is--this point was widely recognised in the debate--to manage tourism development so that it is sustainable.
	We believe in a living countryside with thriving rural communities. We reject the idea of a division between town and country and we are developing policies in all departments. At the moment, I happen to be speaking with my tourism hat on, under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but, as noble Lords have recognised, I have to speak in the House for all government departments. Indeed, in a debate like this, that is absolutely essential. Certainly, I am not speaking for the Treasury, particularly at this time, any more or any less than for any other department.
	We are aware of the similarities and differences between tourism in the countryside and tourism in urban areas. Nevertheless, they face continuing development pressures and we need to ensure that they contribute to the quality of the local environment and promote sustainability. It is a fact that the benefits of tourism are unevenly distributed across England. Some areas are overwhelmed. They suffer congestion and degradation. Others simply do not get enough tourists, perhaps because of poor facilities or poor infrastructure. I certainly do not want to single out particular areas in that way. Our strategy document of last year, Tomorrow's Tourism, places significant emphasis on the importance of rural tourism. It is no coincidence that the first of the 15 action plans in the strategy is a blueprint for the sustainable development of tourism to safeguard our countryside, heritage and culture for future generations. That has been the theme of this debate.
	A number of noble Lords welcomed the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit report on rural economies. That has demonstrated the need to modernise government policy frameworks so that we focus on encouraging support for productive, sustainable and inclusive rural economies. We recommended fostering the enterprise environment, lifting the burden of regulation--the noble Lord, Lord Wade, was particularly eloquent on that point--with planning controls which are more supportive of the needs of rural businesses. I shall say more about that later, but I wanted to mention it now to recognise its importance. There has to be increased support for farmers' contributions to the environment, better traffic management, better rural transport--I shall come back to that point--and improved access to the countryside. The point of all of this is that when we are looking at rural economies we see tourism as a key contributor to sustaining them.
	Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, that some of the press coverage of this document has not been entirely accurate. We certainly do not plan to have a mandatory congestion tax, as has been suggested in some of the press. This is, after all, a discussion document. Some of the points it raises for discussion should not be taken as firm government policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to IT and the rural areas. Yes, of course, some forms of broad band technology cannot reach more than a certain number of kilometres away from exchanges, but ISDN is available in rural areas. The Government are keen to see that IT is generally available.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked me who is responsible as the lead body for the strategic development of tourism in England. That is certainly the English Tourism Council, which was born out of the Tomorrow's Tourism report. Of course, because of the international aspect, it must do so in collaboration with the British Tourist Authority, but there is no doubt as to who is in the lead: it is the BTA and the English Tourism Council.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I certainly did ask that question, but I went on to ask who is actually responsible for helping farmers or anyone else in the rural community who want to develop the industry and need help and advice in formulating the business.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for that, because there are many different problems and issues, there are many different agencies. But I do not think that there is any overlap between them. If one is looking for help for farmers, one looks to one agency. If one is looking for help in planning, one is looking for help in small businesses. Different people are concerned, but that does not mean that there is overlap.
	I was pleased to hear the general welcome for the consultation document on rural tourism from the English Tourism Council and the Countryside Agency. Like many other noble Lords, I am looking forward to seeing the responses to that consultation document and to contributing to the Government's response to it. Yes, it is true that field sports are not included in the 22 key issues for consideration, but it is up to noble Lords to respond and to add field sports to the 22 key issues if they want to do so.
	I was asked about the timing of the rural White Paper, which everyone appeared to be awaiting eagerly. That is also good news. Consultation is still going on. The discussion document was launched in February of last year. We have had about 800 comments, which are now still being considered. When that is complete, we shall publish as soon as possible. It is not possible for me to give a date for it, but I can say that there will be a strong tourism development aspect to the rural White Paper.
	In case I neglect it, I want to respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about zoo regulations. The revised standards of zoo practice were announced last month. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981, to which they refer, does not apply to farms, as farms do not generally exhibit wild species. If they do exhibit birds of prey, wallabies or animals like that, they will fall within the provisions of the Act as such birds and animals are not normally domesticated in this country. Perhaps I may finish by saying that there is a common theme here. We are concerned with the protection of the public from attack and the protection of the workers in zoos. Above all, we are concerned with public health, because there are issues here which affect wild animals, wherever they may be.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I shall do so briefly. Is he aware of the representations that have been made by the Farm Attractions Network with regard to the fact that it has been informed by the Government that farms will be affected because there are family farm attractions which have animals that are not normally domesticated in this country? One example given was of a llama; another was of a dormouse. I must admit that I have never yet felt under threat from a dormouse.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have, my Lords. I am scared of all animals. Of course the views of the Farm Attractions Network will be taken seriously by the department.
	This is a debate about tourism in the rural economy rather than a more general debate about agriculture. What we might say usefully about the very major problems and opportunities for agriculture in the context of a debate of this kind is quite limited. However, reference has been made to the Action Plan for Farming announced last week by the Prime Minister, with its £200 million pounds of funding. It is true that there are parts of the country and types of farm where diversification in to tourism is not possible. But there are many measures that could be of use in developing tourism in the rural economy.
	For example, £6.5 million will be available for the provision of on-farm advice through the Small Business Service. A free consultancy service will be available to any farmers wishing to seek approval from the planning authorities for a diversification project under the England Rural Development Plan. There will also be a doubling of the regional development agencies' redundant buildings grant to £8 million in this new financial year. MAFF already works with farmers and with its agencies, including the agricultural development agencies, advising farmers working to diversify in to tourism--a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. That will ensure that they are able to benefit from new initiatives such as LEADER+ and the England Rural Development Plan.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made a familiar but none the less serious complaint about there being too many agencies concerned with rural tourism. While acknowledging that there has been in the past a considerable degree of what might be called "iniative-itis", we nevertheless need to bear in mind that different parts of the country and different parts of the rural economies have different needs in terms of tourism development. This is not a case of "one size fits all". It is true that people with different needs go to different bodies for support. They approach the regional development authorities, on occasion the regional cultural consortiums, and particularly local authorities, specifically mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
	It is true that many of the powers of local authorities have been eroded over the years, especially under the previous government. But local government legislation under this Government seeks to restore powers to local authorities and in particular the power to decide for themselves how they spend some of their money. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will feel that that is a step in the right direction.
	Many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord Plumb, spoke about planning issues and urged that our planning systems should be quicker and more flexible. I acknowledge the need for that. We are firmly committed to sustainable development and the need to integrate the environmental aspects of development with the economic and social aspects, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade.
	Clearly, new tourism development must be assessed with all those points in mind, and planning guidance has been amended to take account of them. Publications by the DETR such as Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice is evidence of our determination to do that.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked how planning policies can be made more flexible. Tomorrow's Tourism aims to ensure that all tourism development is more sustainable by ensuring that it is aesthetically attractive and in keeping with the landscape. Again, that is why planning policy guidance is being revised.

Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the Minister on that point. He has not answered my specific point as to why there is a statutory obligation to examine environmental matters and no statutory duty on planning authorities to take into consideration the economic needs of their region. That has not been changed by any recent planning guidance.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I acknowledge that it takes a great deal longer to turn around statutory obligations than it does to affect the way in which planning authorities operate through planning policy guidance--which is why, seeing the urgency of the noble Lord's point, we are relying on planning policy guidance at the present time.
	Many noble Lords talked about the importance of rural transport. I was slightly surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Monro, saying that some of this does affect tourism. I suspect that he was referring to specific examples such as support for rural bus services. Much of our transport policy has been directed at tourism. One such example is the abolition of the air passenger duty in the Highlands and Islands, which I hope the noble Lord welcomes. Unfortunately, I am not sure that I am qualified to answer about Eurostar connections to the West Country since Eurostar is a private company and its network and timetabling is not a matter for the Government.
	I was surprised to hear noble Lords talking as though there were a possibility that the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill could actually damage tourism. I should have thought that the reverse was self-evidently the case and that access for a wider public to more of our beautiful countryside was bound to be helpful to tourism. The Bill contains protection for landowners. We shall be able to debate its provisions in detail when it comes before this House. I certainly reject the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that it will turn England into a massive theme park.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said that this is not the time to debate hunting. Indeed, the Government will not make any public statements about the matter until they have received the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and have had time to consider it. The debate has been not merely about hunting but about shooting, fishing and riding. It would be perverse to suggest that those are not important parts of the rural economy, and they are important to tourism as well. There is no threat to those field sports. There are many ways in which the Government are acting: our approach to infrastructure, accommodation and access will undoubtedly help field sports.
	I could refer to the daughter document to the transport White Paper on inland waterways, which will include, for example, angling issues. I do not have time now to go into the detail on the others, but I could refer to the Rural Enterprise Scheme. The annex to the published scheme refers specifically to the needs of riding schools. I could certainly refer, if I had more time, to the Small Business Service and the importance of what it is able to do for small businesses in rural areas. After all, tourism in rural areas is largely a matter of small businesses. I acknowledge the validity of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lords, Lord Harrison, Lord Phillips and Lord Montagu, about the role of small businesses and the need for support to be provided to them.
	The unanimity of views expressed in the debate has been impressive. I hope that I have shown in the time available to me that the Government agree wholeheartedly with the emphasis that has been given to the importance of tourism and in particular its importance to rural England.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We have heard from a wide range of experience in terms of geographical accounts of tourism. Some clear and supportive themes were developed throughout all the contributions.
	One of the most interesting aspects, about which I feel particularly strongly, is the need to identify the tourist regions and the United Kingdom itself. I was rather taken by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that the harmonisation of culture was a deterrent to tourism. That was a very helpful way to crystallise the difficulties that might be faced. That observation was somewhat at odds with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and his vision of what might be described as European tourism in which the local pub would become known as the "Drag and Hounds" and the sterile theme park nightmare, to which many noble Lords have referred, would creep upon us.
	I was greatly disappointed that, with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, there were no other contributions from the Government Back Benches. Given the importance of this matter, I am surprised that greater interest has not been shown in it.
	Many noble Lords felt strongly about planning. From the reply of the Minister, I detected some recognition on the Government Benches of the need for flexibility in planning. The Minister said that farming had perhaps played too large a part in the debate. I do not agree. Frankly, farming is such an integral part of rural Britain that if that is what we are to sell to tourists, it must be viewed with that clear objective in mind.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not put it quite like that. I said that in the context of the subject-matter of this debate it was not possible to do justice to the importance of farming. I did not say that farming was not important.

Earl Peel: My Lords, that was not how I understood the response of the noble Lord at the time, but I accept what the Minister has said.
	The Minister can be under no illusion as to the strength of feeling, certainly on this side of the House, about the importance of field sports to tourism. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said she believed that when the report of the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is produced, the economic importance of field sports will be recognised. However, I detected some reluctance in the tone of her voice. That is a pity because it is contrary to the views expressed by her right honourable friend Charles Kennedy when he addressed the Game Conservancy Trust at the Game Fair last year. I was rather encouraged by what he said then about field sports and their importance to the countryside. The theme which emerged in many speeches of noble Lords is that one is not concerned solely with the economic value of field sports, but with their contribution to the maintenance of the landscape.
	The Minister said he believed that it was up to noble Lords opposite to ensure that field sports featured in the final paper on tourism. I believe that it is up to the Government, not us. We have presented the facts. We hope that the noble Lord will take note of what has been said and report to the relevant departments. Surely, the importance of field sports has been so clearly expressed from these Benches that the Government cannot but accept the importance of field sports to tourism, the landscape, and rural Britain. The Minister said that he did not wish to see any division between town and country; nobody wishes to see that. However, if the Government insist on forcing the wishes of one on the other, divisions are bound to develop. I hope that the Government will give very careful consideration to that matter in future. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Central Africa

The Earl of Sandwich: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what response they are making to the continuing conflict in Central Africa.
	My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister and all those noble Lords who have stayed late this evening to participate in this debate which seeks to draw attention to the gravity of the conflict in Central Africa, especially in the Great Lakes region of Eastern Congo. The debate seeks a more positive and visible contribution from our own Government to the peace process, and to encourage the efforts of humanitarian agencies that work to improve the lives of ordinary people.
	The conflict in the DRC is spread over a vast area of Africa which is much larger than Western Europe. It is difficult for us here to identify the localised causes of the conflict, which have a long pedigree, but it is much more than a three year-old struggle for power in the Congo, which has now sucked in at least nine other countries. Daily, the war claims lives and dissipates wealth which should support the local economy. As always, the victims are the marginal farmers and their families who depend on the various factions. About 960,000 people are displaced, with tens of thousands more in neighbouring countries. Half a million people in the east are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, according to the most recent UN Mission there. Even the named villains--fighting forces such as the Interahamwe, Banyamulenge Mai Mai and remnants of the old Rwandan army--include many innocent civilians caught up in their wake. "Rebels" are so-called by national governments and our media for convenience, but they represent large dispossessed minority groups who are desperate to avenge previous tragedies in the wake of the 1994 genocide.
	Moreover, while the killers in this proxy war have their own local identity, they are also armed and subsidised by respected national leaders who themselves have been fighters alongside them. The people of Congo have been waiting for over three decades for their liberation; and they have also seen the steady collapse of their society, economy and mineral wealth. One can sympathise with the MLC leader Jean-Pierre Bemba when he says:
	"Who is surprised that after 40 years of independence, the economic and social development of Congo-Zaire has completely failed ... All of us witnessed, some as accomplices, others as spectators, a real apartheid exercised by black men against other black men ...
	Betrayed by promises which have not been fulfilled and repeated lies, the Congolese have once again been reduced to a form of slavery".
	How can we help in this major conflict which saps the energy and resources of a whole region? We had high hopes of President Laurent Kabila when he swept to power in Kinshasa in 1997 with the promise of elections and a united country. At that time he owed his success to the Rwandan Patriotic Army under Paul Kagame, now Rwanda's acting-President, and Uganda's Yoweri Museveni, both of whom had served in Uganda's liberation war. They have now turned against him, while his main ally Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe has made the war a costly distraction from his own problems at home. The present drama of civil war with frequent calls for UN intervention are all too familiar to Congolese who still remember Katanga.
	This time the UN has been too timid or ill-equipped to enter the Congo, let alone solve its conflicts. It still has to investigate the crimes against Hutu refugees from Rwanda in 1996, two years after the genocide which left about 800,000 dead. Many in the aid agencies suspect that half a million refugees were forcibly repatriated in three days from Mugunga and neighbouring camps with western connivance, leaving many thousands more to an unknown fate at the hands of the militia and foreign armies in eastern Congo. Meanwhile, the Rwandan and Ugandan armies are still free to roam around the area at will beyond the rule of any law except the gun. It is easy to criticise the UN, which is no more than a creature of governments, but perhaps our own Government can explain why the international community still gives massive support to Uganda and Rwanda, which is always justified by the terrible events of the past, while it neglects to improve, or even fully evaluate, the dire situation of the people of Congo, both refugees and displaced.
	I was told by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, on 22nd February that we had to be cautious. The Lusaka accord was the best deal on the table and it was supported not only internationally by the African states involved, the UN and OAU, but it was also what the participants had actually agreed. MONUC, the UN Mission, is ready to expand under the terms of the accord. In February Resolution 1291 again extended the mandate until August and authorised an expansion of the mission up to 5,500 military personnel, including 500 observers. In theory, a joint military commission is responsible for peacekeeping until a UN force is established. But the news is not good. Attention has shifted towards the internal political dialogue, but the violence in Kivu and fighting in Kasai have stalled the whole process.
	Much was expected of the former President Ketumile Masire who is meant to be the facilitator of the internal dialogue. Unfortunately he was shabbily treated in Kinshasa two weeks ago and unable to leave the capital to carry out his work. Presumably the Minister will confirm that European Union governments have protested vigorously about this treatment.
	What about the latest UN report by M Bernard Miyet which points to continuing conflict and the imposition of unacceptable restrictions on peace keepers? The UN Human Rights Commission was also "gravely concerned" last year with the executions, disappearances and arbitrary arrests by the armed forces and militias, recommending that the crimes be investigated and the families compensated. We have seen all too often in our own peace process how hearts can be lifted at the prospect of reconciliation, only to be disappointed by the failure of the principal parties to implement any agreement. Others will speak about Zimbabwe, but perhaps I may express the hope that Britain, with its own agenda there, will not thereby raise the political temperature over the Congo.
	We may now see a new Congo mission on the East Timor model--although not exactly like it--emerging from the United Nations which would be welcome if it genuinely commanded international support and the full co-operation of President Kabila and the parties involved.
	However, as Kofi Annan said recently, it is not all "unrelieved gloom". Nelson Mandela, the facilitator, and several heads of state have been involved in Arusha in a potential settlement for Burundi. Several of us heard Mr Mandela give an impressive speech this morning. There could hardly be a greater show of African determination today to settle African problems.
	The FDD leader, Jean-Bosco Ndayikengurukiye, has now indicated his willingness to attend within "an appropriate framework". There is, for the time being, an alliance between the Tutsi-dominated PARENA Party and a wing of the mainly Hutu FRODEBA Party. The sticking points, I believe, are army reform, amnesty and the make-up of a transitional government.
	A major issue in Burundi is the dismantling of the regroupment camps which have caused such dislocation in the rural economy. These must be dismantled as soon as possible. Mr Mandela said the same this morning. They are like concentration camps and should be removed. Aid agencies, Churches and human rights agencies are active, trying to speed up the legal process for the thousands accused of ethnic killings and bringing some humanitarian relief to those who are displaced or on the run. I hope that the Minister can say whether the Government plan to increase their own aid programme in Burundi.
	There is an astonishing story of a Burundi orphan found hiding in the funnel of a British steamer in St Helena. His entire family, including 12 brothers and sisters, had apparently been killed by soldiers. He had fled through Zambia and Mozambique to South Africa. There must be many stories like that still untold.
	As a board member of Christian Aid I know that there are many individuals working behind the scenes to achieve peace education, human rights, reconciliation and development in Burundi. In South Kivu, despite the lack of access and insecurity because of Interahamwe activity, emergency relief and development projects such as the provision of microcredit, especially for women's groups, in Bukavu can still co-exist. Oxfam and Save the Children are also active there. What sustains aid workers is the knowledge that the people themselves seem to put up with an intolerable degree of suffering and can get by with very little outside support or understanding.
	Perhaps the Minister will put me right on this Government's commitment. I have been combing speeches to find Central Africa content. I believe that because of our new interest in Eastern Europe and the Balkans we have lost some of our capacity for African diplomacy. I do not doubt that expertise is there in the FCO--it gave me an excellent briefing last week--but I wonder whether we have real determination at the top.
	We are only scratching the surface of the conflict. But I believe that we could be more active, and we may need to be, to prevent another genocide from occurring in this highly volatile part of the world.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on raising this important topic. It is of grave concern that we have had such serious conflict and such waste of life and opportunity. Once conflicts start, it seems almost impossible to restore stable peace.
	Such conditions are not unique to Africa but--I hope that I am mistaken when I say this--there seems to be almost an air of indifference to the tragic situations in so many countries in Africa. Fortunately, the future is not entirely bleak. I had the pleasure this morning, as did the noble Earl and many others, of attending a briefing at the South African High Commission given by Mr Mandela on his mediation in Burundi. He said that it would be a very long time before anyone can be satisfied that the problems of the continent have been resolved. But as most noble Lords will know, Mr Mandela took up the invitation to follow the late Julius Nyerere in seeking to mediate and find a solution to the problems of Burundi.
	There are currently 19 different organisations meeting in Arusha, Tanzania, trying to find solutions to the political and economic future of the country. Mr Mandela said that he was hopeful that there may soon be a breakthrough although formidable issues remain to be settled. An amnesty is being discussed. How does one differentiate between the acts carried out apparently in the pursuit of a political and even democratic objective from the slaughter of individuals? It is very difficult to separate them.
	There needs to be discussions about the kind of democracy which is workable and necessary for a country like Burundi. One needs to balance the need of democracy with the necessity to provide effective protection of, and representation for, minorities. If we do not achieve that, we make no progress.
	Mr Mandela made it clear that in order for the peace process to be effective, before he himself will visit Burundi officially, there has to be the release of all political prisoners; the media have to be able to function without impediment; and the so-called "regroupment camps" closed down. President Buyoya denies that there are political prisoners and that the regroupment camps are internment camps. But the fact that Mr Mandela is prepared to speak out as loudly and clearly as he does is of great significance.
	The costs of negotiations are expensive. Although it is hoped to provide draft proposals soon, and that they will be quickly discussed and agreed upon, the parties in Arusha, as Mr Mandela said, do not necessarily have the incentive to come to quick decisions. They must be encouraged to do so. Some people have expressed concern that reconstruction and development aid for Burundi is being withheld until political solutions are in place. Is that the case? We need to know.
	I know that the Minister has taken a close interest in this region. I raise two points. How will the Government respond to Mr Mandela's request for more funding to continue the peace process? He says that the money is running out. Clearly, we cannot allow the peace process to end simply because of that. Can my noble friend tell me what plans are in place for development assistance?
	Mr Mandela made a powerful plea to the important nations of the world to work together and to speak with one voice in every area or region of the world where conflict needs to be resolved. I believe that that is especially true in Africa. We have left behind us, I hope, the Cold War position where each side had its client states and cared not one whit what happened within the country provided the leaders mouthed either the tenets of Marxism/Leninism or the said how much they believed in the free market capitalist economy, with little, if any, sincerity. Yet there remains a suspicion that powerful nations want to retain or even enhance their spheres of influence.
	Geographically, it may be argued that Angola is not part of central Africa, but I believe that it is--certainly for the purposes of the debate. The whole issue of what is happening in central Africa and Angola is tied together with intertwining strands throughout. For decades, the people of Angola have suffered and they have continued to suffer even since the ending of the Cold War. It looks as though finally the United Nations is seriously addressing the problems facing Angola and looking at ways to end the influence of UNITA which has waged a bloody civil war even since the elections of 1992.
	It has finally been accepted that UNITA is culpable in this matter and the UN has at last begun to examine the way in which sanctions against UNITA have not been fully and properly implemented. The report of the panel of experts on violations of UN Security Council sanctions on UNITA, commonly known as the Fowler report, made known its findings on 15th March this year after a six-month investigation.
	The Fowler report studied breaches of sanctions in armaments supply, petroleum deliveries, diamond smuggling and UNITA finances and assets. That report is extremely hard hitting. It names individuals, countries and politicians who have been involved directly and by collusion, and involved indirectly by omission.
	The Fowler report proposes extremely tough measures against those who have given succour to UNITA, whether they be individuals, organisations or countries. Some already have denied the charges made against them and have cast doubt on the veracity of the evidence garnered by the panel of experts.
	It has been said, for example, that too much reliance is given to the evidence of UNITA defectors and that the evidence has not been properly checked. It has also been said that French officials have complained that too much emphasis is placed on the role of the Francophone countries. However, Ambassador Fowler clearly stated that the standards of evidence used by the panel were more stringent than would be required in a court of law.
	On 18th April, a couple of weeks from now, the UN Security Council is due to meet to draw up a resolution on the findings of the expert panel report. I hope that the UN will live up to its responsibilities in full and in a manner which it has singularly failed to do up to now.
	I am pleased that the most vocal and strongest proponent of accepting the Fowler report and its recommendations has been my honourable friend Peter Hain, Minister of State at the Foreign Office. On 15th March at the Security Council, he stated:
	"The time has come for the international community to face up to its obligations. It is no good putting our hands up in the UN for sanctions against UNITA and then take no action while citizens in our countries make money out of misery. That is simply hypocrisy".
	He went on to say:
	"Britain looks forward to a series of mandatory UN resolutions to implement the report's key recommendations. The Security Council next month [a fortnight from now] must make decisive action. There must be no delay and no equivocation. The credibility of the Security Council is at stake".
	I hope that that remains the Government's position.
	If the UN acts seriously on 18th April and subsequently, I believe that that will be an immense help not only to Angola but to the UN in its quest for peace and stability in other parts of Africa. People have looked at the UN and at what has happened in Angola and have said that the UN and its powerful members have not been serious about peace and stability. Now they must surely be serious about peace and stability because, as was said by the noble Earl and no doubt will be repeated by others with an interest in different parts of the region, we are witnessing tragedy upon tragedy upon tragedy. Somehow, we must act and we must act soon.

The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, I have an immediate and personal interest in the affairs of another Central African country; the Sudan. The problems of these African countries spread over their borders and I am aware that the problems of the Sudan refugees have spread over the border into Uganda and Kenya. The problems cannot easily be contained within national boundaries.
	I was last in the Sudan in early December and met with its Church leaders in Nairobi in February. I list among the problems of the Sudan the following. First, the civil war that has run since the 1960s between the northern and southern parts of the country. Secondly, the consequent large number of displaced persons from both north and south who have spread over the borders. Thirdly, little economic development in the south, but the recent discovery and exploitation of oil, in which the government in the northern part of the country are taking the lead and controlling. Fourthly, a breakdown of community in the south, with men as young as 11 or 12 away at the war and the consequent alteration of social patterns that that brings. Fifthly, the consequence of all of that is the severe malnutrition of many, the lack of medical care for almost all, and the fact that there is virtually no education for the future. All that brings about a continuous maelstrom in a crucible that might ignite at any moment to produce even more severe results.
	What is it possible to do in order to forward the process of peace? The IGAD talks are due to restart this week, but I want to make clear to the House the Churches' commitment to bring reconciliation to the area wherever that can work. That is an important role. The Churches are the only institution in the Sudan which are able to step across the boundaries between north and south. Last year, it was most encouraging to learn that Bishop Joseph Merowe, now the Archbishop elect, was given free conduct as a southerner to go to Khartoum and to execute the duties of his office from there. He has been twice to Juba, up to Port Sudan and is now back in the north having visited the south.
	That is a welcome sign, but are we able to bring pressure on the government of Sudan to extend that to other people, not just Church leaders? If the agencies working for peace and reconciliation are to be taken seriously, it is important that they can step across the boundaries. We hope that the Government will want to support us and all others working in the Sudan to make such crossings of boundaries possible.
	How might we achieve the next step in reconciliation and what support can we give to both sides who are weary of war but cannot find a way out on their own? At the end of April, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury will be in Juba for the enthronement of the new Archbishop of Sudan. Who else can be drawn to share in an act of worship at that time so that the practice of reconciliation can begin and not just be talked about? Will other people be allowed to go to Juba? Will there be a possibility of persuading both sides in the conflict to suspend war and in a cease-fire open land routes so that people from Merowe, Bishop Joseph's old area, can go to Juba? It is only 60 miles by road, but if you want to go there from Merowe, you must fly to Kenya or Uganda, back to Khartoum and from there down to Juba--and then all the way back again. That is not only an enormous expense, but it is extraordinary when a 60-mile road journey can be made.
	What other opportunities could such a visit by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury help to unlock? What will the Government encourage the most reverend Primate to do along with others whom he may be able to invite to join with him in supporting the new Archbishop of Sudan as he starts his ministry? Can we persuade other Bishops from the Sudan to attend and persuade members of the SPLM there also? Would the enthronement of an Archbishop be a possible occasion on which that could take place?
	I move to the question of displaced persons; that is, displaced within the Sudan, where southerners in the north and northerners in the south are moved out into camps. I visited a camp at Jebel Aulia outside Khartoum. Within recent years it has been moved further out of Khartoum into completely barren desert and it is very difficult to see how those who must live there--some 25,000 people--can have any hope. They cannot grow a thing; there is no source of water; there is extremely exiguous medical aid; yet, they are still under pressure to live a human life. How can others from the north who are in refugee camps in the south--at Aruna or over the borders into Kenya and Kakuma--live a human life that is worth living?
	It is just possible that there are signs of hope. During my visit to Juba in December, I met people from four different displaced camps, each with their own tribal identity, who were ready to work together. One thing that bedevils life in this part of Africa is the extreme tribalism. Any sign that people are ready to cross those boundaries seems to me to be worth supporting and trumpeting: four tribal units in Juba are ready to work with one church leader; there is a Nuer-Dinka agreement; and a WUNLIT agreement just continues to hold. How can we show our support for those kinds of agreement that cross tribal boundaries and which are so often the cause of internecine warfare?
	Of course, many camps suffer severe conditions. There is malnutrition, medical shortage and educational deprivation. In that regard, many aid agencies have left Sudan because the SPLM agreement has broken down. The agencies have wanted to control where aid should be targeted. If the SPLM controlled where aid went, would that prolong the war? I believe that that is a serious question which we need to ask--and press--both of the SPLM and of the aid agencies.
	I also observe the way that local community breaks down and, with all men at war, the important role of women develops. The sub-structure of civil community for the future depends very much on the educational opportunities that women can receive: education in leadership, in the administration of justice and in peace issues. I am reminded that there may be parallels here with Northern Ireland when a women's peace initiative made such a breakthrough.
	In addition, there is the business of freeing land so that it can be worked. One UN estimate is that approximately between 0.5 million and 2 million landmines exist in the south. A former SPLA engineer and 38 people working with him have been on the clearance programme which has opened 572 miles of roads for relief convoys. However, what about opening up the land so that it can be used to grow food? Education to persuade soldiers to fight for a homeland, not a mineland, is the battle-cry of that former SPLA soldier.
	Then there are questions about who controls economic development, and serious questions about the use to which the revenue is being put which is derived from the oil now flowing. Can any pressure be put by the Government on the Government of Sudan to use the currency gained for rebuilding the infrastructure for education and for health and not on war? The Government of Sudan are still bombing civilian targets, hospitals and schools in the south. Recently, the Samaritan's Purse Hospital in Lui was bombed twice in one week and more than 40 bombs fell. I believe that we need a tide of public opinion to condemn those barbaric acts.
	It will be helpful if the Minister can let us know whether Sudan's plight was discussed at the EU/Africa Summit in Cairo last weekend. What action can we take, apart from raising the matter there, in order to put pressure on other governments? Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, mentioned at the end of his speech, we need to put pressure on the United Nations to continue to engage seriously with those matters. If the United Nations does not act and does not put any teeth into its actions but continues to mouth words, I do not believe that we shall see any credibility given to it in the future.
	I want to say to the Minister that the Church is ready to step over the boundaries to assist in putting the gospel of reconciliation into practice. The visit of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury at the end of April provides us with such an opportunity. I hope that the Minister will give us an indication of how that visit, too, may help to broker peace in this troubled region. If we can do it there, it might provide a good example for other parts of Africa as well.

Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Earl has done millions of ordinary African people a great service by asking this Unstarred Question. He is continuing a very good tradition which is being established in your Lordships' House: to keep Africa on the agenda. This is the third debate in one month which centres on Africa. Education and economic development respectively were the topics of my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. However, both of those roads to progress will remain closed while there is war or civil conflict, and Africa has had more than its share.
	Development cannot take place while civil society is disrupted. Much needed development assistance has to be diverted to urgent humanitarian aid, and too often that cannot be delivered to the people who need it because of the danger involved. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, spoke at the EU/Africa Summit about the elements of building a free society. However, I am sure that he would agree that, before we can even start down that road, we must find ways of ending conflict.
	The noble Earl and other noble Lords have described the complex situation in the DRC with no fewer than 10 countries--11 if UNITA is counted separately--having been involved at some time or another in the conflict or conflicts. Although there are, loosely speaking, two sides to the conflict--that is, pro and anti-Kabila--some countries are opposed to others only in World War I style; that is, because "my enemy's friend is my enemy". I do not believe, for example, that there is a real axe to grind between Uganda and Angola or great friendship either between Rwanda and UNITA, although there is reputed to be profitable gun-running between them.
	The visit of former President Nelson Mandela this week is very timely for our debate. My noble friend and other noble Lords met him this morning. Unfortunately, I could not because I had a Science and Technology Select Committee visit in my diary. What he said then and in today's Guardian interview with Anthony Sampson is very cogent. As facilitator of the Arusha peace talks in Burundi, in succession to Mualimu (Julius Nyerere), he is presiding over complex negotiations. The sub-committee structure of the talks in which different aspects of the internal conflict and their resolution are being discussed by those directly involved is a useful model, I suggest, for the Lusaka negotiations on the large and even more complex conflict in the Congo. I gather that former President Mandela feels encouraged by the progress in Arusha and even talks of a possible breakthrough being achieved quite soon. If Burundi, as one of the countries involved in the wider conflict, can achieve stability, that would be an example to the powers who are signed up to the Lusaka agreement, which is "the only show in town", to use the words of Kofi Annan.
	But that process is still a long way from success, not least because leading figures in the DRC, Zimbabwe and UNITA--to name only three--are making tidy fortunes in diamonds and arms trafficking. I expect that my noble friend knows about whom I am speaking and I could invite her to name them, but perhaps that would not be very helpful in the current diplomatic climate.
	I am sure that President Mandela is right in saying that all five foreign armies now in the Congo should withdraw as a first stage of the peace process after a ceasefire. That withdrawal must be simultaneous and under the aegis of the proposed United Nations force. The figure of 5,000 troops has been suggested. That seems to me to be far too small a force in view of the vast area concerned. No such force should be deployed until a ceasefire is agreed. But even then that force must be prepared to defend itself and be powerful enough to ensure that the agreed withdrawal takes place. The lessons of the United Nations in Angola--I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside--must be learnt and the mistakes not repeated.
	That will be only the start of a much wider settlement in the Congo Basin which, in the long term, might involve, for example, voluntary population movements and even--dare I say it?--some alteration of the sacred colonial borders. But that would be for the populations concerned to decide if and when democratic government can be restored.
	I warned my noble friend that I should use this opportunity to mention the parallel conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea about which I know more, having visited both countries in the past eight months. I am aware that that is a few kilometres north of the Congo but at least Ethiopia and Eritrea have a common border with the Sudan, which, at one point, was involved in the central African conflict.
	It is relevant also because the framework peace agreement, which has been drawn up by the OAU, to resolve the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea could be considered a model of its kind. It is tantalising that the final part of the agreement--the technical arrangements for implementation--which would enable both sides to withdraw to their previous positions, to the status quo ante, after a ceasefire, is unacceptable to Ethiopia in its detail. That is despite the fact that in the agreement Eritrea made an important concession in agreeing to redeploy its forces two weeks before Ethiopia does the same. It is clear to me that for reasons best known to itself, Ethiopia is dragging out the peace process and prolonging the damaging economic effect of sustaining two large armies, armed to the teeth, facing each other along a 600-kilometre front with periodic, quite severe, eruptions of conflict.
	I was taken to the front in Eritrea, to the place on the border which is nearest to Asmara. There we saw the remnants of a very severe battle in which the Ethiopians had tried to break through a defended Eritrean position with three rows of trenches. Some tanks had got through, but they had been destroyed. Most of them did not manage to make it. We saw 27 destroyed tanks and the Eritreans told us that the mass grave that was in front of us contained 10,000 bodies, many of whom had been used as human minesweepers. Therefore, it is not a small conflict. That battle took place almost a year ago.
	Added to that is the current famine in the Ogaden and parts of northern Ethiopia. Eritrea has been asked by USAID to let food aid pass through Assab to Ethiopia, which is the port nearest to Ogaden. Djibouti is now being used to capacity. But that offer of Eritrea is not acceptable to Ethiopia.
	Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development, said that,
	"Valuable resources in Ethiopia are being diverted to perpetuate the conflict".
	Is it not time for the United Kingdom, through the European Union and the United Nations, possibly the Security Council, to put gentle but firm diplomatic and economic pressure on Ethiopia to sign up to the OAU peace agreement and end this senseless conflict? At the same time, we should be greatly increasing our humanitarian aid.

Lord Joffe: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Sandwich for introducing this debate. At the outset, I express the hope that the Government's current and welcome focus on the disturbing events in Zimbabwe will not distract attention from the conflicts in central Africa in which, of course, Zimbabwe is also involved.
	Likewise, international pressure for progress on implementing the Lusaka Agreement to bring an end to the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a major priority. But at the same time, the UK, with its responsibilities as a Security Council member and major aid donor, needs an explicit and coherent policy for the countries and the conflicts which surround the Congo.
	The impact and durability of the war in the Congo is compounded by its regional nature. Crisis in one country has the potential to create crisis across central Africa. The failure to have a coherent and comprehensive strategy across the whole area leads to what are seemingly curious decisions. For example, only a few months ago, the United Kingdom was selling spare parts for military equipment to Zimbabwe, which is one of the main protagonists on one side of the Congo war; and yet at the same time it was providing bilateral budgetary support of £10 million per annum to Rwanda, which is deeply engaged on the other side of the Congo war.
	The scale and complexity of the conflict in central Africa are immense and measured in terms of human suffering devastating. No fewer than 15 countries are involved in conflict of different intensities in that area. Millions of human beings have been affected directly as refugees or displaced people. And that is to say nothing of the tens of thousands of innocent civilians massacred, maimed and raped in those wars. Moreover, there are all the indirect effects as the economies of the countries concerned are damaged or in some cases destroyed.
	Behind that complexity there seem to be four points, each of which should have a bearing on the United Kingdom's policy towards central Africa. The first is conflict prevention. In developing long-term strategies to deal with conflicts, prevention must be at the top of the agenda.
	Secondly, there is peacekeeping. There are 1.3 million people in the Congo who are the victims of a vicious circle. The Security Council does not deploy peacekeepers because it says there is no peace to keep. Yet if there were a significant number of peacekeepers, many on the ground believe that they could make a significant contribution to building the confidence necessary for meaningful peace to develop.
	Thirdly, there is the cycle of poverty and conflict. As in so many regions, poverty and hardship are parts of the cause as well as the consequences of conflict. In Burundi, economic collapse has contributed to the siege mentality which helps to raise tensions. In the Congo, 2.1 million people have only a precarious access to food. Although there are dilemmas in providing humanitarian aid in conflicts, it is sad that donors seem to be awaiting the successful conclusion of the peace process in Burundi and greater progress towards peace in the Congo before more actively engaging. More could be done now, on which I shall touch later.
	Fourthly, there is the question of arms. There have been disturbing recent reports of substantial arms shipments brokered by UK citizens from, for example, Bulgaria to Zimbabwe for probable use in the Congo. It is intolerable that, while the Government try to tighten up the UK's regular arms exports, that kind of brokering, which would be regulated in the United States, can still go on, making the United Kingdom an international centre of that sleazy trade.
	As was demonstrably clear when some of us--it has been mentioned by other noble Lords--listened to Nelson Mandela at South Africa House this morning, leadership of the peace process in central Africa must be driven by the leaders of the African countries involved. But that does not mean that there is not an important role for the rest of the world, which must also be part of the solution. What more could Britain do? I suggest that there is a great deal more: first, there is conflict prevention. The Government should be investing massively in conflict prevention. Apart from the human suffering that would be avoided if such investment succeeded, it is far more cost-effective to invest in preventing conflict than in dealing with its consequences.
	We should press the United Nations Security Council harder for an immediate deployment of an adequate number of peace keepers. Such a stark contrast between the international community's determination in Kosovo and Timor and, as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees recently put it, its "timid and piecemeal" approach in Africa gives the dangerous message to the Congo combatants that the world is not that much concerned about seeking peace in Africa. At the same time, there is a need to build support for peace internally. Wars are fought in the name of people who are never consulted. By way of example, all Burundians must be informed about the external process, including the vital efforts of ex-President Mandela. The UK Government, along with other donors, could support the process, as well as providing support to strengthen civil society.
	Some more generous aid cannot wait until there is secure peace. There needs to be more substantial humanitarian aid to the Congo now. There are currently funds to reach only one seventh of those in need of food and who are accessible to the aid agencies. In Burundi, the United Kingdom should continue to give creative support to local initiatives which could both contribute to the success of the peace process and begin to reverse the economic collapse. Perhaps most dramatically, if the United Kingdom and other donors committed themselves now to the carrot of swift and substantial support for demobilisation once a peace deal is finalised, that might itself help to bring that deal closer.
	Then there is the issue of arms, a subject in which, tragically, British brokers have a bizarre advantage. The comments of the Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Peter Hain, earlier this year are to be welcomed, that, post-Zimbabwe and the export of Hawk parts to Zimbabwe, there would in future be an extremely strict look at export licences for arms to all countries bordering the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is vital that that pledge is now strictly enforced. Controlling direct arms sales, however, is not enough. The Government's forthcoming Bill on strategic export controls must also regulate selling and brokering to all destinations, not just those currently under embargo. Central Africa glaringly shows up that arms to non-embargoed countries find their way to embargoed ones.
	Another question that arises from the current experience of conflicts in central Africa, as it has from so many other theatres of conflict in the past, is the pernicious effect of the militarisation of refugee camps. Camps in the region serve not only as recruiting bases for armed groups but also as transit points for arms and supplies. That syndrome will continue to bedevil peace efforts not only in central Africa but elsewhere in the world unless it is tackled comprehensively by the Security Council and the UN system. The UK Government could also play a role here by influencing the Security Council to take action.
	In conclusion, I renew my encouragement to the Government to develop a more comprehensive strategy across the areas of foreign policy and aid and conflict resolution policy for central Africa as a whole. The multiple conflicts across the region are so closely interwoven that the pulling of any single thread can have unexpected and contradictory consequences. The canvas must be studied as a whole.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, to take up one point of great importance on which the noble Lord has just touched--the question of strategic export controls of arms--I believe that the Government have already decided that they will include brokering in their new legislation. It would be useful to have confirmation from the Minister, when she comes to wind up, that that is the case. I know about the individuals in this country engaged in procuring arms for Eastern Europe and selling them to Zimbabwe and other countries in the regional neighbourhood. The gentleman to whom the noble Lord referred is probably Mr John Bredenkamp, who lives in Sunningdale and who has been referred to recently in Africa Confidential.
	The main question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, at the beginning of his speech was whether there was real determination at the top to deal with the problem of conflict in Central Africa. The signs are that we see Ministers exhibiting real determination. I remind your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already mentioned the speech made by the Foreign Secretary at the EU-Africa summit in Cairo. Before that, a contribution was made at the end of February in Nairobi by the honourable gentleman, Mr Peter Hain. He hosted an international conference to see what more can be done to secure peace in that region.
	Mr Hain and the participants agreed that they were solidly behind the Lusaka peace agreement, that a UN mission should be deployed as soon as possible to monitor progress in the DRC and that we would support the regional peace-makers and oppose those who chose the path of war. Mr Hain addressed all the DRC's neighbours who are involved in the conflict--Zimbabwe, Uganda, Rwanda, Angola and Namibia--calling on them to stick by the Lusaka agreement, to stop fighting, and to help to secure peace and stability now. He also mentioned the unholy links between neighbouring governments and commercial interests allowing them to profit from human misery and plundering the natural wealth that belongs to the people of the DRC, a point I shall return to later.
	Mr Hain said that the war in the DRC is Africa's biggest crisis, and as he put it, it is a litmus test of the UN, Africa and the international community's resolve. I respectfully agree with that. How do we turn the general principles that were laid down in Nairobi into practical measures that will stop the fighting and allow democratic political processes to kick in?
	The Kenyan initiative to convene a regional conference on ways of stopping the circulation of small arms is a useful step, but a great deal of work has been done on that subject already. I hope that it will not go over the same ground as others have already covered--for instance, the useful work that was presented to the CHOGM by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Over a Barrel: Light Weapons and Human Rights in the Commonwealth; the work by Human Rights Watch, Arsenals on the Cheap: NATO expansion and the Arms Cascade; and the work published by SaferWorld are three recent examples of initiatives that have been taken on the proliferation of small arms and what can be done about it.
	I particularly like the recommendation in the Human Rights Watch report that the results of the OSCE survey on arms trade controls should be published, including the names of member countries that have not replied. Perhaps the Kenyan meeting could take a broad look at the proposals that have already been made at other international conferences and see how many of them have been implemented or even considered by governments.
	We have heard that there are symptoms of a new level of instability in the Great Lakes region. I cite the sudden resignation of the Rwandan President Pasteur Bizimungu, after the departure of the Prime Minister Pierre-Celestin Rwigyema and the Speaker Joseph Sebarenezi. Such signs are not good. In Rwanda there have been desertions from the army, the military police and intelligence and several independent journalists have fled the country.
	As we have already heard, in Burundi, the rebel leader Jean-Bosco Ndayikengurikiye, of the FDD, has said that he would attend peace talks only if certain preconditions are met--I believe the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, called it an appropriate framework. They want the dismantling of the regroupment camps and the release of political prisoners. The facilitator, former President Mandela, has said that he will do his best to deliver those conditions, but President Pierre Buyoya has said that he will not close the camps unless security returns. Five Tutsi groups have rejected the Arusha process because, they say, it means that Burundi would be led by the perpetrators of genocide.
	Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, who recently toured the Great Lakes region, says that apart from the immediate concern of a cease-fire, three large problems have to be solved before any lasting agreement can be reached: reintegration of rebel forces into the army and civil society, accountability of war criminals, and the management of the political transition.
	Mention has been made of the expiry of the funding for the initiative of President Mandela. The noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Joffe, both asked whether the British Government will agree to top up that money, a suggestion with which I agree. Not only do I hope that the UK will agree to do that, but I also hope that we shall attempt to secure the process of funding with our partners in the European Union so that we can keep it going for that much longer.
	In the DRC itself, President Chiluba of Zambia says that there are no more skirmishes, but in certain areas there is full-scale war. The facilitator of the peace process, former Botswana President Sir Ketumile Masire, has said that his efforts are being frustrated by the Kabila Government's refusal to let him visit the interior of the country. The UN Secretary General's Special Representative for the DRC, Mr Kamel Morjane, has been to Lusaka to confer with President Chiluba on what is called "the deteriorating situation in the DRC".
	The Joint Military Commission ends its meeting in Kampala today, to be followed by a ministerial level political committee that will take place between tomorrow and Saturday. That meeting will discuss cease-fire violations, co-operation of the belligerents with the UN Mission and the financing of the cease-fire supervision. Can the Minister say something about the JMC and whether there are results that can be reported to the political committee or whether the process is still confidential? The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, quoted the report made by the Secretary-General in January 2000 in which he stated that 960,000 people are internally displaced in the DRC as well as 300,000 refugees in six neighbouring countries. Those figures are not as large as the numbers who were displaced in Rwanda following the genocide, and the number of deaths probably has not reached the level of over 800,000 who were killed in Rwanda. Nevertheless, there are warning signs of a large increase in the fighting, in particular in South Kivu.
	The Secretary-General has stated that reports from South Kivu strongly suggest the danger of large-scale violence among the different ethnic groups. The Banyamulenge, who are native Congolese Tutsis, say that the Mayi-Mayi, armed by Kabila but said to be under Zimbabwean command, are planning to exterminate them. At the beginning of the year 700 families escaped to Bujumbura, the capital of Burundi, while a further 200 families reached Bwagera in the Rusizi plain of South Kivu. However, an estimated 150,000 people are now surrounded on the Moyen Plateau. In a message to the Secretary-General last week, their organisation warned that the stage was set for the genocide of the Banyamulenge.
	Noble Lords will recall that the genocide in Rwanda was preceded by equally clear warnings. As the Secretary-General commented afterwards, when asked about the message he had received from General Dallaire telling him what was about to happen, the fundamental failure was lack of political will, not lack of information. I hope that we shall not see a repetition of that case where warnings were issued and were received by the international community--including the United Nations--but we failed to act. Unfortunately it looks as though the Democratic Republic of Congo could become the scene of human tragedies that, collectively, will equal the loss of life in Rwanda.
	It has already been mentioned that when the camps in DRC were closed and the people living in them returned to Rwanda and Burundi, over half a million people went missing. They were mainly of Hutu origin. It was a catastrophe that has never been properly investigated because President Kabila refused to allow any UN missions to travel to the region. Now Kabila's forces have teamed up with former members of the Rwandese armed forces responsible for the genocide, and the Interahamwe, to exterminate the Tutsi in eastern DRC. Furthermore, hundreds of Tutsis have been murdered in and around Kinshasa following hate speech broadcasts by government officials. According to Amnesty International, people suspected of belonging to the rebels or in any way associated with them have been summarily executed, including at least one case where a number of alleged RCD members were burned alive.
	In the Ituri region, on the border with Uganda, there have been major clashes between the Hema and the Landu peoples, resulting, over the past month or so, in the deaths of between 4,000 and 7,000 people and the displacement of a further 150,000.
	Britain can do only so much to stop the carnage in DRC. The general approach adopted by the Foreign Secretary in his speech at the EU/Africa meeting in Cairo may have useful results for the future. However, the Government's review of their work on conflict prevention in Africa is not likely to make any immediate impact in Goma or Kisangani. We need to use any leverage we have to persuade neighbouring countries to withdraw their troops, to stop Kabila from collaborating with the perpetrators of genocide and to end the hate broadcasts.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords,
	"I speak of Africa and golden joys".
	Shakespeare's description of the continent in "Henry IV, Part II" is a far cry from what we have heard in today's debate, eloquently introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who is so knowledgeable on the subject. Both in this debate and in that held in your Lordships' House on 15th March on education in developing countries, we have heard litanies of disaster. I mention this because a lack of education, the abundance of corruption and poor governance are possibly the three roots of the problems confronting central Africa today.
	Africa is one of the world's most important repositories of raw materials. It produces around 98 per cent of the world's diamonds, 55 per cent of its gold and 20 per cent of its copper, as well as large quantities of various strategic minerals such as manganese, chromium and uranium. Africa produces two-thirds of the world's cocoa and three-fifths of its palm oil and has immense reserves of water power. It could grow virtually every crop on earth. Why has this potential been wasted?
	Nothing is endemic about conflict in Africa, a point so rightly stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. There is no more reason that the suffering in Africa should be any worse than anywhere else in the world. Lame excuses have been put forward that refer to the carve-up of Africa, but fundamentally the present disastrous situation stems from the exploitation of the poor by the corrupt rich.
	At the risk of over-simplifying a complex subject, from Biafra to Ethiopia, to the vast Congo regions, the fighting is basically all about control of natural resources and wealth. To achieve a modicum of economic growth, most people would agree that Africa needs institution-building, a crack-down on corruption and transparency in government. The real curse of central Africa today is the governments themselves. Africa's elite seem to rule for themselves. Few of the countries are democratic. One shining exception is Senegal, with the newly democratically elected president--a rare model of transfer of power. In a grandiose speech he offered little comfort to those fellow African heads of state present whose regimes have either refused to relinquish power or won it via the gun.
	The Democratic Republic of Congo's government and rebels have lately been stepping up the propaganda war and there are mounting allegations of ceasefire violations. The Lusaka peace accord was set up to prevent a return to war. The agreement on a ceasefire in the DRC was signed by the DRC, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, Rwanda and Uganda on 10th July 1999 in an effort to end what is a regional war being played out in the DRC.
	The main provisions agreed at Lusaka included the immediate cessation of hostilities. The ceasefire was due to come into being within 24 hours of the signing of the agreement, which diplomatic sources interpret as 31st August, when the RDC signed, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. However, there have been continuous claims and counterclaims of ceasefire violations by both sides, including military attacks, territorial advances, troop deployments and reinforcements within and across the borders.
	What is the current state of play? The UN's first phase involvement under the peace deal was to establish an observer mission to the DRC called MONUC. MONUC has been trying to establish contact with the relevant players at their headquarters and gathering intelligence but has been unable to do so as a result of inadequate security guarantees from the DRC Government. MONUC also has a humanitarian mandate and humanitarian officials have expressed frustration that military activities appear to be the only focus of MONUC's efforts, despite the seriousness of the situation, in which the United Nations recently reported that more than 800,000 Congolese are internally displaced--a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury--and 10 million people are suffering from food insecurity.
	However, in extending MONUC's mandate last week to 15th January 2001, the Security Council made no move on approving the military observers or humanitarian support personnel. They are fighting again in the Congo, but that is about all that is clear. After weeks of skirmishing between the Congolese Government and the Congolese rebels, a full-scale battle broke out in northern Congo early last month. That has been followed by battles in six or seven other places in rebel-held areas. Outsiders have virtually no independent means of finding out what is going on. The rebels blame the government; the government blame the rebels. The United Nations, which was asked to send military observers to monitor the truce, is considering sending up to 5,000.
	Angola's civil war is spilling across all its borders. Angola takes pride of place; after oil and diamonds its main export is violence. The civil war between the government and the UNITA rebels has already spilt into three of the four neighbours--Congo, Congo-Brazzaville and Namibia. Now Zambia, which has managed until now to keep Angola's fighters out of its territory, is reported to be dispatching soldiers to reinforce its eastern borders. Relations between the two have long been strained.
	That appalling scenario of conflict reflects the effect of two basic factors, to which I referred in my introduction. Central Africa's regional troubles stem from the fighting for its wealth and the state of its institutions. Africa's current leaders in this area pay scant attention to the long-term needs to put their countries on a sustainable growth path. Instead, they neglect their basic needs, particularly education. They use the country's budgets, made up of the people's tax revenues and foreign aid, to arm their forces and to perpetuate conflict--moreover, rape and pillage--in a search for control of others' natural resources. The idea that any of these plunderers might revert to obeying public laws rather than private profiteering makes the situation even more despicable, if that were possible.
	Sadly, the performance of the Government in helping this magnificent continent back on its feet has proved to be dismal. For example, Mr Hain, when questioned recently in the other place by Mrs Gillan on the scope of military advisers working in Zimbabwe, answered that there were five military advisers providing peacekeeping training, including modules on human rights, rights of the child and democratic control of the armed sources. Are military advisers really what is needed to advise on breast-feeding?
	In a recent public statement Mr Hain also offered a home to 20,000 British citizens who live in Zimbabwe, plus thousands of others. I ask, is this the kind of policy we look to from a Minister?
	Here is a country after 13 years under Mugabe's rule, as reported in the Herald Tribune this week, which has a fuel shortage so severe that the streets are jammed by queues of cars waiting in line for hours for petrol; a currency that crashed last year, reducing the exchange value of the Zimbabwean dollar from the US dollar's level in the year of independence to less than a nickel today; a quarter of its population infected with AIDS; and nearly half the workforce jobless. Thousands of rioters have illegally occupied more than 700 farms since February demanding that the white commercial farmers quit; yet the governing party appears not to care and has not withdrawn a single soldier from the Congo.
	Our Foreign Secretary at the African-EU meeting in Cairo was photographed kow-towing to Mr Mugabe instead of putting pressure on him. While Mr Mugabe continues his spendthrift ways, the Foreign Secretary refuses to take the three focused actions which would limit his room to frighten his opponents and fire up his ragged army of supporters.
	First, he must take steps to agree that EU aid to the Zimbabwean Government is frozen forthwith. Secondly, he must act now to freeze Mr Mugabe's assets. Thirdly, he must take a decision to stop sending the spare parts and providing the military advice which partly enable Zimbabwe to continue to fight in the Congo, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Avebury.
	The Foreign Secretary must make it clear that the world is watching. We should suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth and make its return to the fold conditional on the ability to hold fair and proper elections, even though the mechanisms for doing this are quite arcane. British policy should surely be tied to the democratic process and to good governance to strengthen transparency.
	Forgive me if I repeat this, but I feel that I cannot say it enough; perhaps one day it may not fall on deaf ears. The Government should be supporting on a larger scale the British Council and the BBC World Service. These most highly respected worldwide institutions are recognised as being the fairest and most unbiased by all listeners. These two magnificent organisations, instead of having their budgets cut, should be encouraged and given a far larger remit. I trust that the Government will also be sending representation to the meeting in Dakar.
	Finally, John Gunther in his book Inside Africa, written in 1955, said that an African had told him that their most important need was more education and economic opportunity. Alas, there has been precious little progress since then.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I must begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for opening this debate so eloquently. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke so poignantly this evening. I am aware of the noble Earl's interest in Africa and the importance that he attaches to it being kept high on the international agenda.
	However, I was a little surprised to hear the comments of the noble Baroness about democracy in a number of countries. As we know, there are many struggling countries in Africa today which are doing well so far as concerns the democratic process; South Africa, Nigeria and many others, to mention but a few. We were heartened today when many of us heard from the former President Mandela of South Africa about all the good work that is being done throughout the region by the African leaders--

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I should point out to the noble Baroness that I did say that a few countries in Africa are democratic.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am most grateful to hear that clarification. If I misheard the noble Baroness, I apologise for any implicit criticism.
	The whole issue is also a priority for this Government. I can reassure the noble Earl that there is commitment to address Africa's problems and that that commitment is real. I should point out to my noble friend Lord Hughes that the approach of Her Majesty's Government towards central Africa, especially in relation to Angola, will remain robust in responding to their testing problems.
	We very much support the IGAD peace process in Sudan and welcome the role that the Churches are playing in the drive for peace in the region. We welcome in particular the efforts being made in Sudan. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury is right to highlight the contribution being made and the challenges being faced today by the Churches. We all need to join the race for peace. Her Majesty's Government welcome all runners to join this marathon from wherever they hail.
	We, Her Majesty's Government, are playing our part. The attendance at the Africa/Europe Summit in Cairo this week by both my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend Peter Hain demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to the region. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for alluding to their statements as evidence of their, and the whole Government's, determination on this issue.
	We also agree with the emphasis placed on conflict prevention by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. It is a fundamental element in our foreign policy worldwide--nowhere more so than in Africa. I can reassure the noble Lord and confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the proposed legislation will seek to include the brokering of arms.
	Many noble Lords rightly concentrated on one issue that dominates Africa today; namely, the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The DRC is the major challenge facing Africa, the United Nations and the international community. The conflict is damaging the Congo and all the countries involved. The costs are extremely high in terms of human lives, physical destruction, impoverishment of already desperately poor people and abuses of human rights. There are more than 1 million people internally displaced in the DRC and more than 100,000 have fled across the border and become refugees in Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and now Congo Brazzaville.
	But there is good news. The framework for peace is there. In the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, the Burundi Peace Process and the proposed International Conference on the Great Lakes we have credible formulae for lasting peace. So our aim must now be to help implement the Lusaka Agreement, to support the Burundi Peace Process and to work with African, United Nations and our European partners on the preparation of the international conference.
	However, if Lusaka is to work, the parties must show their commitment to it. Recent reports of increased fighting by all sides are a major threat to Lusaka and to the possibility of the UN deploying. We have expressed our concern and exerted pressure on all those concerned to choose peace and show renewed commitment to Lusaka--the best chance that we have for peace. It is a war no one can win and everyone can lose. The parties must stop fighting or there will be no UN observer force and no UN peace assistance mission.
	We, along with the international community, will maintain the pressure on all parties to implement the agreement, pointing out that their interests will not be served by prolonging the conflict and instability in the region. There is no military solution. Negotiated peace provided for by Lusaka is the only solution. Everything rests on its successful implementation.
	In the Security Council and with the rest of the international community we shall continue to drive the peace process forward, both through political and diplomatic support, but also practical assistance. We shall not shirk this enormous challenge.
	I understand noble Lords' concerns, particularly those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, as regards the peacekeepers. I hope that noble Lords will be comforted by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1291 of 24th February, which authorises the expansion of the UN force in the Congo to 5,537 military personnel. It is a clear demonstration of the Security Council's readiness to provide practical support for Lusaka and help resolve the conflict.
	But deployment can only be, and must be, an operation which helps the parties implement an agreement to which they themselves are fully committed. We cannot force compliance. The deployment of troops will not in itself guarantee peace and security for the DRC and other countries in the region. There are other issues which we are addressing.
	First, if there is to be peace, it is vital that there is an open and inclusive national dialogue on the future of the DRC to arrive at a new political dispensation and national reconciliation, as provided for in the Lusaka agreement. This must get under way quickly. The UK has already provided £25,000 to fund the dialogue. Sir Ketumile Masire, the facilitator, has accepted our offer to provide him with a technical adviser. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords by telling them that the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo have apologised for the confusion which cut short Sir Ketumile's recent visit. We understand that he will return to the region shortly.
	Secondly, along with our EU partners, we must prepare for an international conference on the Great Lakes region. Although the conference will not be launched until Lusaka has been properly implemented, we believe that it is valuable as an incentive to the parties to move forward.
	Thirdly, we are encouraging the parties to develop a plan for the successful disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration and relocation (DDRR) of the armed militia groups active in the region. This is critical for the successful implementation of the Lusaka agreement and for lasting peace in the region.
	We have set out the main principles which should underpin any successful DDRR programme, and presented them to the parties. Our aim now is to encourage them to take this forward with the UN. The success of the process is dependent on the political commitment of all the parties involved in the peace process.
	Fourthly, we fully support the proposal for the establishment of a panel of experts to investigate the illegal exploitation of DRC's natural resources. These are being used by all sides to help fund and sustain the war and this is robbing future generations of Congolese of the resources to build a stable future. The international community needs to ensure that commercial dealings in DRC's natural resources are legal; and that the people of the DRC, not private individuals, are the ones who benefit.
	Fifthly, in line with all these actions we are also tackling the humanitarian situation in the DRC. We remain concerned about violations of human rights and humanitarian suffering on both sides of the lines, including acts of incitement to ethnic hatred and violence. The difficulty in helping the victims is gaining access. We are pressing the UN to take a firm lead in negotiating access for humanitarian agencies. We all know that a great deal of humanitarian suffering has been caused by this conflict. International donors, including the UK, are providing assistance. Since the war began, the UK alone has committed £1.7 million in humanitarian assistance to help people affected by the conflict. This assistance has been provided through the United Nations and non-governmental organisations.
	We have called on the government of the DRC and on the other belligerents to provide the necessary security guarantees for international NGOs so that they can work in those areas hardest hit by the conflict.
	We deplore what is happening in Zimbabwe. We are pressing the government there to abide by the rule of law. As noble Lords are aware, land is an emotive issue in Zimbabwe. We have consistently said that we would support a land reform programme that is transparent. The Department for International Development has decided to support land resettlement through non-governmental channels. We shall make available up to £5 million over the next three to five years.
	We have considered carefully whether it would be appropriate to call for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, but we have judged that, despite the seriousness of what is happening today in Zimbabwe--the farm invasions and other matters--that is not appropriate. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met President Mugabe in Cairo on Monday and that we have raised our concerns. We look forward to receiving the Zimbabwean delegation here.
	Many noble Lords have touched on other issues. Perhaps I may say quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that we have good news in regard to Ethiopia and Eritrea. We understand that the government of Ethiopia are now in a position to accept the OAU peace package in its entirety and that a peaceful resolution may be in sight.
	So far as concerns Burundi, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, that we are providing practical and political support for the Arusha process and the associated peace-building efforts. We are willing to contribute further funds to the Arusha peace process if it proves necessary. Nelson Mandela's appointment has greatly encouraged us all. Those of us who heard him speak today will have been heartened by his words.
	We have shown our commitment to the quest for peace and we will continue to do so. The UK, along with the international community, will support Africa in its efforts to manage and resolve its crises. In the DRC we have provided political, diplomatic and financial support. We stand ready to help to implement all aspects of the Lusaka agreement--the national dialogue, DDRR--and to address issues such as the exploitation of the DRC's resources by both sides. Our vision is of a democratic and prosperous DRC, at peace with itself and with its neighbours.
	Ultimately, though, we understand that the best and most lasting solutions to the continent's crises will be those fashioned and honed by Africa itself. But Britain will do all it can to help.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes before ten o'clock.